The origin of whistle blowing can be adduced back to the provisions that are brought to book in common law. Common law referred to the laws that were enacted to protect affairs of people in medieval times. They were based on the common principles that guided the affairs of people. It is from this instance that whistle blowing was devised. As a common phenomenon, most employers were acting in a manner that can better be described as ultra vires in the exercise of their duties. In essence, whistle blowing was devised as the position that could act as a guide and a means of correction to the actions of the employers. Even though employees are under the direct management and control of employers, it followed that, whistle blowing was part of the law and it was the only way that sanity would be maintained in the society. However, with time, different approaches towards the same concept by some people have been positive on the concept of whistle blowing while at that same time; some people have been opposed to its position. To those who believe and ardently hold on the position of employer supremacy, whistle blowing is not correct. It is significant to note that, in most instances, their mentalities are positioned in such a way that the whistle blowing is unethical and irrelevant (Beauchamp).
On this regard, Davis is a significant theorist who triumphed in the advocating of the position of whistle blowing in the society in the contexts of standard theory and complicity theory. In this discussion, his theories will be significant in our understanding of whistle blowing.
Standard theory of whistle blowing denotes that, employees have a moral position to highlight on the actions of their employees. In a nutshell, whistle blowing refers to the actions of employees in the context employers and bosses are positioned. In this regard, it follows that, employees have a position that is granted within the stipulated rules that guide and direct businesses in the job environment. As a matter of fact, actions of a worker will be justified and confirmed if he or she was working within the parameters of the law. On the other hand, it is significant to note that, permissions that are granted to employees cannot be conclusive. As a matter of fact, at most times the permissions are drafted and granted by the same some leaders or employers. How do we expect them to make laws that will work to their disadvantage? It is also true to denote that, employees have the moral obligations to ensure that, the work environment proceeds on a parameter that provides for the objects and the guiding principles that support and guide the work environment. In essence, it follows that, whistle blowing is the most reliable form of ensuring that work environments are positioned on instances that allow for absolute development and success of each and every person’s endeavors (Bowers). In a nutshell, standard whistle blowing can efficiently work if environments are guided by principles that are encompassed in the policies that targeted guide work environments.
However, if it is given to employers that they hold the biggest position in ensuring that whistle blowing is guaranteed, if follows that, the instances that support and call for the appreciation of whistle blowing will be submerged. Rarely will it ever be realized that whistle blowing works on the benefits of a particular company or work environment. At the same time, standard whistle blowing is significant because it provides for sanity in society. In these regards, standard whistleblowing is guided by rules that pertaining its applicability and consequential success. In my opinion, standard whistle blowing if fully, implemented, it will prevent instances that will come along the prevalence and the successive filling of cases that pertain misconducts of employers in as far as their actions are concerned. In the event the regulatory instance that is provided for in the standard whistle blowing parameter, it follows that, the society will be characterized by uncalled for upheavals that are characterized by frequent reporting on misconducts of employers.
In the long run, the events will be ineffective and uncalled for. On the same note, whistle blowing that is based on a standard theory is oriented in such a way that, it only allows for employees to raise an alarm in as far as the conduct of their employees are if it is established that the actions of the employees are pertinent to that particular area in the context of the activities of the job environment. On the other hand, it is significant to denote that, standard whistle blowing can be used to safeguard the interests of the work environment (Westman). Suppose a manage of a certain company engages to rather unethical conducts that can result to the closure or complete incapacitation of the business, it is at the option of the workers that are connected to that department to make the bad conducts known to the public.
As a matter of reality and of fundamental value, it follows that, such employees will have acted in a way that serves to protect their positions as employees in a firm or business environment. Similarly, standard whistle blowing is oriented along the position that, employees are required to raise an alarm in the event their managers or employers behave in a manner that ousts morality and parameters that are purposed to develop and integrate the business environment.
However, the relevance of these instances that are brought out by standard whistle blowing, it follows that, the method and technique of whistle blowing faces hurdles that can be described as the greatest destabilizing instances that are oriented along the employment of whistle blowing (Pherles 1-29). It follows that, this method of whistle blowing is oriented towards a consequential effect. In this case, it is true to denote that, the person doing the whistle blowing in the position as an employee is subjected to instances that can culminate to incriminatory aspects to the disadvantage of the employee.
On the other hand, the theory can be positioned as one that is not sufficient in all that it offers. In case it was providing for objects were strictly purposed to lead to a situation that leads to the full satisfaction of the workers, employer and the particular institution or work environment, it would have been effective. In this case however, standard whistle blowing is subject to instances that do not shade a bright light on its course. It is also significant to note that, the action Taken by the whistle blower is rather insignificant and uncalled for in the event it leads to aspect that can better be described as nonsense on stilts. In essence, this kind of whistle blowing does lead to a position that serves to reduce or curb the harm. What is its need, if it does nothing to reduce the harm that comes along the actions of employers?
It is not satisfactory to discuss the standard theory has brought forward by Davis without paying due regard to his simplicity theory. The simplicity theory on whistle blowing is a built up to the standard theory. It must be regarded that, these takes are in as far as the assertions of Davis are connected. The simplicity theory denotes that before whistle blowing is justified the following instances must be established and adduced.
It must be established that the employee undertaking whistle blowing is a direct employee. At the same time, it must be stated that he employee was an employee at his or her own volition. In essence, it has to be established that the person filling the whistle blowing instance was a must be volunteer. In this regard, as opposed to the position as that devised and brought forward by the whistle blower in the parameters that are provided by the standard theory, simplicity theory narrows down the categories of people who can validly raise such an instance. Similarly, the ideas about people who have volunteered themselves in these cases are the most preferred due to the fact that, the persons are a point of neutrality. At some point, some employees are extremely self-interested such that thy end up soliciting for their own interests without paying due regard to the pertinent matters that matter in the society.
Similarly, Davis further postulates that, it must be established that, the organization whose employers are being investigated under the instance of whistle blowing must have registered the organization. In this case, the simplicity theory follows and adheres to the provisions that are brought forward by common law. As a matter of fact, common law is the mother law that brought on board instances that come along with whistle blowing. Common law was based on ensuring that legalities were well mastered and followed to the latter. In this case, simplicity whistle blowing makes it easier for the institution of a case against the employers for breach of laws that are purposed to support the society. At the same time, simplicity whistle blowing serves to protect the employees that end up making the claim against their employers. In case an employer is fined and charged over misconduct, it is an expected instance that such employers will sent their employers packing.
The sanity of the action of the employee is protected in law. At the same time, it follows that, Simplicity theory serves to create a sense of warning to the employees in terms of how they carry out activities that are at the center point of their actions. Businesses are protected by the events that are oriented along whistle blowing. On the other hand, it is significant to note that, it makes trade more reasonable. Simplicity theory calls for direct link between the action of the employer and the role of the respective employee. If it is proven that the action of the employer would result to a hurdling instance to the employee, the action of whistle blowing by the same employee will be protected. Similarly, the action serves to protect the employee from the instance of being implicated in the events that are envisaged to cause havoc and problems.
On the other hand, it must have established that the event that the employee is pin pointing in as far as whistle blowing is concerned should ensure that, the actions of the employers are directly connected to the role of the employee in as far as the employment is associated. The essence of this principle that guides whistle blowing is oriented along the position that, people do not just need to wake up some day and claims that the actions of some employers are not justified. It must be falling directly within the knowledge of the employee. On the same note, it is reasonable to realize that, the relevance of this move is to ensure that, claims brought out as a result of the assumed mismanagement and incoherent instances that fall on whistle blowing are not mere puffs but well backed up and adduced to.
On the other side of the simplicity theory, it is established that, the theory does not substantively sort out issues that are connected to employer negligence and miss actions. According to economics and business specials, it acts as a set back to business since it makes it hard for employers to dwell on their sole roles that are occasioned to direct their employees. On the same case, it is also significant to note that, Simplicity theory in its position; it is partial and does not solve conflicts that are along the employer and employee relationships.
In conclusion, the theories of whistle blowing as represented by Davis the theorist are not conclusive and adequate in what they stand for. However, as it has been seen in the above discussions, the theories are partly relevant to whistle blowing.
Works Cited
Allen, Johna. "Whistle Blowing In A New Perspective." New York Times (2013): 23-46.
Beauchamp, Arnold. Ethical Theory and Business. Franfurt: Evern Educational Publishers, 2013.
Bowers, John. Whistleblowing: Law and Practice. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Pherles, Artonen. "Important Features of Whistle Blowing." Careers and Jobs Journal (2010): 1-29.
Westman, Daniel. Whistleblowing: The Law of Retaliatory Discharge. Bristol: Bureau of National Affairs, 2012.
