Characteristics of a Whistleblower
Whistleblowing is defined as an unauthorized external or internal disclosure of information which relates to an unethical practice of a superior or a co-worker which has either occurred or is being contemplated (Apaza & Chang, 2011, P.35). Internal disclosure is less damaging than the release of information to outsiders. There are three main characteristics of a whistleblower. The first feature is dissent. In this case, a whistleblower adopts a dissident voice in the society which makes him/her disregard societal taboos and expose matters which are considered secretive. Their dissent makes them value the public interest more than personal loyalty or organizational loyalty.
Secondly, breach of loyalty is an evident character in nearly all whistleblowing cases. The whistleblower disregards the loyalty they are supposed to accord to superiors. The breach of loyalty is important in ensuring that large corporations are operating their business in an ethical and accountable manner (Apaza & Chang, 2011, P. 67). The final characteristic is that of accusation. In this respect, the whistleblower make a myriad of accusations against his superiors or his company. From these accusations, the general public is alerted about the unethical practices in the organization and they can devise a mechanism of handling the situation.
Davita Healthcare Partners
Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc. is a corporation that deals with healthcare services through the United States of America and its best known for its DaVita kidney care department which has over 2000 kidney dialysis centers across the United States. The whistleblowing was done by two DaVita former employees, Danier Barbir, and Dr.Alon Vianer accused the company of defrauding the government through the government funded programs. The fraud was conducted through ordering and discarding expensive prescription drugs and billing the government for the unused drugs (Greenwood, 2015, P.45). According to the two insiders, the company conducted the scheme to maximize wastage of the drugs and to overcharge the government for them. The company listed Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs as its primary services but instead concentrated on government sponsored programs to defraud the government millions of dollars. The whistleblowers were not sacked as they had already left the company before the expose. Following this revelation, DaVita Healthcare offered to pay the government over $1 billion shillings as an out of court settlement to prevent the matter from proceeding to court. Up to today, the company is yet to admit any wrongdoing. The actions of the whistleblowers were justified because it is in the interest of the general public that government funds are put to good use and not be syphoned in scams.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was introduced in 2002 it introduced significant protective mechanisms for whistleblowers in the corporate world. It contains comprehensive administrative, civil, and criminal provisions and is considered to be the most important whistleblower law of all time. The Act provides a legal remedy for compensating discharged whistleblowers and also prescribes criminal sanctions for a company which initiates retaliatory act against the whistleblower. Dr.Alon Vianer and nurse Danier Barbir are protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Thus, DaVita cannot institute any legal proceedings against them for leaking business secrets (Greenwood, 2015, p.89). The two whistleblowers are former employees and hence cannot be punished by the company through sacking making the first remedy for wrongful termination irrelevant to them.
Conclusion
The exposition by the two former employees was warranted and reasonable because the federal government uses billions of taxpayers’ money to fund medical programs across the United States and hence it is unfair and unethical for companies to unscrupulously seize the opportunity to defraud taxpayers. Funds disbursed by the Federal government cannot be used for private entities gain since they are meant to serve the general public. Whistleblowing has been a very instrumental tool in exposing dirt and ill will in both private and public institutions. It would be prudent for both tiers of government to protect this shield at all costs
References
Apaza, C. & Chang, Y. (2011). What Makes Whistleblowing Effective. Public Integrity, 13(2), 113-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/pin1099-9922130202
Greenwood, C. (2015). Whistleblowing in the Fortune 1000: What practitioners told us about wrongdoing in corporations in a pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 490- 500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.005
