Amazon.com Widgets
  • Whistle blowers should be rewarded for the risks they take in exposing corruption.

    Yes whistle blowers should be rewarded for the risks they take in exposing corruption and wrong doing in the worlds of business and government. They risk their careers and incomes to bring the facts of wrong doing in to the light of day. It's only fair that they be rewarded for taking that risk.

  • Well yes the should

    I do think they deserve some sort of financial compensation for whistle blowing. They did put their jobs, reputation and things like that on the line. I don't know that it should be a crazy insanely high amount, but I do think that they deserve at least a decent amount

  • Whistleblowers should be incentivised to expose bad practice.

    Many people fear blowing the whistle on corrupt or poor practice in their place of employment because they fear the financial consequences for themselves and their families. This can lead to a culture of silence and a continuation on immoral corporate behaviour. Financial incentives could help to remove their fears about financial consequences.

  • Whistleblowers should be compensated

    Whistleblowers risk their life and livelihood when they do blow the whistle, so they should be compensated. They will be unable to get another job in the same sector, will lose any benefits they may have had like medical and pensions and won't get a reference from their employer. The compensation would allow them to have a fresh start.

  • Money is the best thing to encourage corruption

    Money is very volatile motivation. People shouldn't be motivated by money. Snowden, for example, never exposed the NSA for a financial gain. It was ideological, or moral. It was his conscience, at least on paper.

    Money generally makes things worse when it comes to honesty and so on. They need legal protection - it's preposterous that they can be hunted legally - but money will only make things complicated. How would you give out the money? What constitutes a legitimate claim? How would you decide who got the money? What amounts? Would a bigger revelation give more money, and if so, how would you police false claims? What if somebody gave out information that causes people to get killed just to get money?

    Too many variables.

  • Money is the best thing to encourage corruption

    Money is very volatile motivation. People shouldn't be motivated by money. Snowden, for example, never exposed the NSA for a financial gain. It was ideological, or moral. It was his conscience, at least on paper.

    Money generally makes things worse when it comes to honesty and so on. They need legal protection - it's preposterous that they can be hunted legally - but money will only make things complicated. How would you give out the money? What constitutes a legitimate claim? How would you decide who got the money? What amounts? Would a bigger revelation give more money, and if so, how would you police false claims? What if somebody gave out information that causes people to get killed just to get money?

    Too many variables.

  • Whistleblowers need legal protection, not financial security.

    Whistle blowers should receive public support and legal protection. There is no reason for the company or the united states to pay out to an individual for exposing something illegal. If the person was wronged or lost income due to the crime, then there are ALREADY practices in place to provide that individual with income. For example, a whistleblower can sue the company for its wrongdoings, or receive unemployment if they are relieved from their position.

    Incentivizing whistleblowing only increases the odds that someone will "twist" the truth to expose an otherwise legitimate company.

    Like I said earlier, whistleblowing is an act that should be supported by the public, not the mint.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.