. information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commission.” There are two types of whistle blowers: external and internal. An internal whistle blower is a person who reports misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within their company. One important ethical question with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it? Conversely, an external whistle blower reports inappropriate conduct to an outside source.
1. Do these employer statements constitute an unlawful threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA? Why or why not? In response to the statements provided by the employer, it is observed that there is some degree of coercion and threatening accusations made in these statements, based upon Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA. These statements constitute a threat because they demonstrate that the company was making attempts to influence employees regarding the union vote by making viable threats regarding existing benefit packages.
Definitions and conditions of whistleblowing “A whistleblower is an individual that believes that his or her organization is engaged in or willingly permits unethical, unlawful or otherwise reprehensible activities. Whistleblowers bring attention to the objectionable activity and attempt to effect change. Whistleblowers generally report these actions internally and may ultimately resort to reporting these activities to external authorities or interested parties.” (http:cosign.scu. edu505set01003WhistleblowerProfile.htm) In the essay “Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibility” published in Ethical Theory and Business (1995), Bok spells out the conditions needed for whistleblowing. They are: “it singles out specific persons or groups as responsible for threats to the public interest, the accusation of the whislteblower, moreover concerns a present or an imminent threat and a concrete risk must be at issue rather than a vague foreboding or a somber prediction” (p. 330).
Regulatory frameworks are requiring organizations, like yours to implement the necessary safeguards to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. (Khansa & Liginlal, 2009, p. 1) The importance of information security cannot be over-emphasized. It is imperative that you invest in information security as it comes with protection and resilience against malicious attacks. According to Khansa & Liginlal, if we prevent malicious attacks on this company, monetary damages from attacks would be reduced and customers’ information would be saved from compromise, preventing any negative publicity for this company, (Khansa & Liginlal, 2009, p. 17) In a nutshell, information security tries to set security controls to prevent theft or damage to data or assets on your computer. The damage could be from internal or external.
In order for us to determine our liability, should Paula sue for discrimination, we need to understand what the courts consider a hostile working environment, and determine if Sam has, in fact, created one. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, the severity of the conduct, which includes whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, and whether or not the actions unreasonably interfere with the employee’s job performance, are all factors that determine if a hostile work environment exists (Cheeseman, 2010). The first factor to consider is that Paula and Sam had a sexual relationship that Paula ended. While there is no law prohibiting such a relationship it can be considered motive for Sam’s behavior. Secondly, it is Paula’s indication that Sam started exhibiting unwanted behaviors after the break up.
In my opinion it is ethical to market Publius because it creates of open the door for people to speak out about the different malpractices that happen in their country and couldn’t speak about it. 2. Are the creators of Publius in any way morally responsible for any criminal acts that criminals are able to carry out and keep secret by relying on Publius? Is AT &T in anyway morally responsible for these? Explain your answers.
One of the flaws that the opposition notices is that in way shield laws afford extra privileges to journalists and that no citizen should be able to ignore a court ordered subpoena. Simply put, journalist would be placed above the law. Justice Department Official John Ashcroft stated that “reporters today are driven by their editors to deliver tersely written “scoops” usually whispered to them by individuals with political or self-serving agendas who refuse to be identified” and that they “should ultimately be held accountable for acting recklessly and irresponsibly. Allowing journalist this privilege would only further allow them you be able to utilize non-credible sources. Opponents also cite problems with defining who is considered a journalist or news gatherer and who is not.
The organization needs to consider how its activities will influence others and good results. In the detailed analysis it alludes to organizations who sidestep the law by offering the items independently and later join them to make the item that is illicit, despite the fact that this could be viewed as lawful it is just a terrible good decision. It is ethically wrong to settle on a decision to ensure one gathering of individuals while disregarding the wellbeing of an alternate, which is precisely what happens at the present time
The Public Interest Disclosure Act (1999) which is sometimes called the 'Whistle Blowing Act', is in place for considering other perspectives of confidentiality. It allows people at work to raise concerns about crime, negligence, miscarriages of justice, dangers to health and safety and applies whether the information is confidential or not. The act seeks to protect 'whistleblowers' from dismissal and victimisation and thus promotes the public interest and potential extra protection for vulnerable individuals in society. Confidential information should only be disclosed if it is * In the resident's best interests * For the protection of others * In the interest of public health * During an official or legal investigation * If there has been or there
This opposition is valid however; there is a way to prevent this risk on employers. The article Criminal Recidivism: Why it Hurts Everyone, shows that New Haven, Connecticut has found the answer to this opposition. Their government only allows employers to perform a background check on potential employees after a job offer has been accepted. The employer can only refuse the job offer if the background check shows that the employee’s criminal past could interfere with the job offered to them. A person convicted of embezzlement would be a cause of concern if the job offer was for a payroll department but not if it was for road construction (par.