Small Potatoes
Major whistleblower successes dominate the stage: domestic
and international communications surveillance systems, Vietnam War deceptions, frauds
committed by major corporations such as Enron, WorldCom, and more recently
Wells Fargo, and large-scale public safety dangers created by corporations like
GlaxoSmithKline and several other
pharmaceutical companies. Many of
the misdeeds disclosed by small-time whistleblowers are substantial and deserve
broad interest, but more often they are of vanishing public interest, the
stakes involved are quite small, and their villainy is far from terrible.
Misdeeds identified by small-time whistleblowers can suffer
from two sorts of deficits. The wrongs might be fairly perceived as trivial by
most outsiders. Calling insignificant a disclosure
that led to the whistleblower’s suffering retaliation, even causing him to lose
his job, is no rejection of the whistleblower, but only of any heroism that
might be otherwise attributed to him.
Among whistleblower
cases picked up by news media recently, several of the misdeeds several lacked
clear social significance even if the lawsuits over the resulting retaliation
deserved attention.
-
James
Cleavenger disclosed that University of Oregon police officers made up vulgarly
named lists of people they disliked – from Hilary Clinton to campus bicyclists.
-
James
DeNofrio complained that the director of the VA Medical Center where he
worked seemed to be suffering from dementia.
-
William
Plouffe blew the whistle on his university’s hiring of an unqualified teacher
who was the friend of a department chair.
These are all legitimate complaints but they do not reach the
heights of heroism exhibited by Edward Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg. In many cases, valid whistleblower complaints
do not involve great harm to many persons; they may simply involve some stupid
management screwing around.
In many cases, an outsider might have trouble being sure
that the perceived misdeed was not just a misunderstanding. Was it an age bias or really dementia? Were the legitimate qualifications missed?
In its latest semi-annual
report on whistleblower activity, the County of Santa Clara listed 58
complaints. They included worries over
favoritism, bad hiring practices, an unpopular training program, poor
responsiveness in a department, an employee’s impersonating a former employee,
staff colluding to make County contracting difficult, and so on. The County decided that it received so many
inconsequential calls on its whistleblower hotline that it will spend $600,000
to rework
the process and make it more responsive.
A few of my complaints were demonstrably insignificant. Take the food handler card issue, for
example. To get a food handler card, you
suffer a brief on-line course, pay $10 to take a short test on food safety factors,
and get the card. Maybe you prepare food
a bit more safely in the kitchen or carry trays more cautiously to clients; or
maybe not so much. There is little point
arguing that blowing that particular whistle was an act of great moral courage.
Some of my complaints could have been the result of
misunderstanding the facts (although I don’t think so). The bid collusion that I complained about, triggering
Board members’ decision
to fire me, might really have been innocent, as the CEO contended. The payroll issues – the allegedly unpaid
minimum wages and payroll taxes – might not have been problems at all if the
clients involved did not qualify as employees.
We don’t really know since the U.S. Department of Labor, the State, and
the City of San Jose all ignored my complaints.
I filed official complaints on ten different issues that
appeared to me to be violations of laws, regulations, and contracts. For two and a half years after I was fired,
those complaints have resulted in no real changes in behavior by or retribution
for HomeFirst. And arguably no
discernible harm to society from the alleged wrongdoing.
Edward Snowden admitted that his
greatest fear was that nothing would happen as a result of his disclosures. But that is the fate of most small-time
whistleblowers[1]:
they disclose, they suffer retaliation, and the world continues to rotate just
as it did before.
That probable futility offers good reason for people like Tom
Devine of the Government
Accountability Project to try first to talk
potential whistleblowers out of it. Encouraging
potential whistleblowers to reconsider makes good sense because, as Alford
observed[2],
they often feel compelled by the sense of a “choiceless choice.” They believe, almost religiously, that must
come out as whistleblowers[3].
We whistleblowers would do better to shift away from our “moral
narcissism” (Alford) and understand our actions from a reasoned distance,
evaluating our tactics in ways that recognize the power of our adversaries and our
own limited capabilities. I think we
should still act, but carefully, and accept that no one promised us justice.
[1] Alford,
Charles Frederick. “What Makes Whistleblowers So
Threatening? Comment on ‘Cultures of Silence and Cultures of Voice: The Role of
Whistleblowing in Healthcare Organisations.” International Journal of Health Policy and
Management. 5.1 (2016): 71-73
[2] Alford, C. Fred. Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational
Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 2001
No comments:
Post a Comment