At the beginning of the mediation (Wutt ? Ausdruck hör ich jetz auch zum ersten mal) of my homework I want to tell you something about the meaning of whistle blowing in modern societies, such as Germany or the United States, about the advantages and disadvantages and about the alternatives to whistle blowing. At the end I will do a statement on the topic and tell you about my (own) opinion.
The meaning of whistle blowing
At this point I will give you some main information about the meaning of whistle blowing. To blow a whistle means to give alarm e.g. in a company or enterprise for illegal actions taking place there. In a company this kind of alarm could be if someone informed the chairman (du meinst sicher den Vorstand oder Vorsitzenden) of the company or gave away the information to the media, for example a newspaper or a news channel. But even informing the boss might bring up problems, because people (who are = würd ich weglassen) involved may have something against the publication of those illegal actions, (in the company = kann man auch weglassen) for example tax dodging. A reaction could be bullying or even being threatened.
But there are still advantages that whistle blowing would bring up for society (as a whole = optional). A whistle blower would also provide transparency which for example allowed society to be informed about rotten meat being distributed (oder being put into circulation). Whistle blowing could be also a deterrent to other firms or people who act illegally.
The other side of the medal is that a whistle blower could risk his job by making public these illegal actions.
There are many cases where even the upper managment of a firm is actively (oder deeply) involved and this makes it hard to fix the problem without making it public. ...and if someone is purposeful to do something against the mess he mostly lose his job because of the bad protection from the government (hier verlier ich den Faden, der Satz wird zu lang -> And in case a person really took action he would most certainly loose his job because the government doesn't provide any jurisdictional protection). Germany is a good example for this because the jurisdictional system for the protection of whistle blowers is still bad, the irony being that the opposite faction is very well secured by the established law. A firm would sue a whistle blower for making public internal affairs and the whistle blower could even go to jail for his actions.
A better example for a working whistle blower protection is the US where is a better judicial system for example the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which should guarantee that internally standards (ich habe keine Ahnung was der Satz überhaupt bedeuten sollHILFE !). American society also sees it the way that whistle blowing is not denouncing and supports whistle blowing more than the germans do.
But what are the alternatives to whistle blowing ? The easiest alternative is to do nothing but the disadvantage of this may be emotional distress for saying nothing which won't help society either, for example when costumers suffer from health damage as a result.
My opinion about this topic is that doing nothing is not a real alternative but consequences which might follow for whistle blowing are a threat too, so I advise that a person who wants do something about it should deal with the law and then conclude the best way.
PS: Ich weiss nicht was besser ist -> judicial oder jurisdictional
PPS: Etwaige Fehler oder schlechte Ausdrucksweisen dürft ihr behalten
Zitieren
