4 ms·

If an ordinary employee tried to take such a stand, he would be ignored, shut up, fired, sued, or perhaps jailed, depending on how firmly he was willing and abl

by cft 10y ago

If an ordinary employee tried to take such a stand, he would be ignored, shut up, fired, sued, or perhaps jailed, depending on how firmly he was willing and able to take it. FYI: "As household staff served them dinner in the formal dining room, the elder Mr. Shultz said Ms. Holmes had told him Theranos’s blood-testing devices worked so well that they were being used in medevac helicopters and hospital operating rooms, Tyler Shultz recalls. He and his colleague knew that wasn’t true."

prostoalex 10y ago
The whistleblower laws allow some degree of anonynimity precisely for the reasons above. From the article: "Using an alias, Tyler Shultz contacted New York state’s public-health lab ..." "... Mr. Shultz began speaking to a Journal reporter as a confidential source." "... regulatory complaint Mr. Shultz had filed under the alias Colin Ramirez" The decision to confront the CEO personally was his own, he could've chosen the anonymous path all along.
- eli 10y ago
  What whistleblower law?
  - grzm 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_th...
    - eli 10y ago
      That does not apply. He isn't a federal employee.
      - grzm 10y ago
        You're right, he's not a federal employee. There are protections in place for private employees as well, though it varies by state, employment situation, and a lot more details I'm ignorant of.
- cft 10y ago
  An anonymous whistleblower is likely to be ignored however. I edited my reply to include this most likely option. Schultz Jr was contacted in LinkedIn by a WSJ reporter, he did not hide his identity because he likely (empirically) realized that his anonymous complaint would be ignored.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    Based on what data? The government has set up a bunch of venues specifically for anonymous whistleblowers, e.g. https://www.whistleblower.gov/overview/submitatip/ https://www.whistleblower.gov/overview/submitatip/ https://www.irs.gov/uac/whistleblower-informant-award https://www.irs.gov/uac/whistleblower-informant-award https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3714.pdf https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3714.pdf so there's at least some process behind the scenes rather than > /dev/null He didn't have to hide his identity from a WSJ reporter because journalistic sources are protected by similar set of laws. To the readers of WSJ he was just a "confidential source".
    - cft 10y ago
      In the article it says "In March 2014, he anonymously emailed his complaint to New York officials.." Then the article says: "In March 2015, Tyler Shultz was contacted by a Journal reporter through the professional network LinkedIn." Something doesn't match up here. I can only assume that his anonymous complaint did not reach the desired effect in a year, and he went via other channels, using his own renouned last name.
      - prostoalex 10y ago
        Yeah, I wish they provided more details on this. It would also seem rational for the investigative reporter to ping 20-30 LinkedIn contacts who listed Theranos as their employer in hopes that 2-3 would reply, so maybe he wasn't the only one the reporter contacted.
      - rbobby 10y ago
        The reporter likely contacted a bunch of Theranos employees via LinkedIn (and probably sorted the list based on former/current). Was Tyler the only confidential source to talk to the WSJ? Probably not. because of that whole two sources rule good journalists follow.
- danso 10y ago
  > The decision to confront the CEO personally was his own, he could've chosen the anonymous path all along. It's worth pointing out that Shultz seemed to have acted in good faith initially, and apparently didn't think anonymity was justified: > Mr. Shultz says he took his concerns directly to Ms. Holmes. When they met in early 2014, she encouraged him to talk to Daniel Young, a Theranos vice president in charge of biostatistics. He seemed to have acted with optimistic intentions for Theranos. It was only later that he sent a more scathing email, after which he waited for a few days, got the arrogant reply from the Theranos president, and then quit. Given all of the professional and personal reasons he had to hope the best for Theranos, he had plenty of excuses to just let things go with a it's-above-my-paygrade mentality. Because it was, on paper, above his paygrade, and his boss and coworkers have the prestigious degrees and engineering experience to argue that Tyler is just mistaken. It's not easy in a cult-like company to call out shit even as/after the shit hits the fan. But it seems rarer to be the frog that jumps out of the warm water, when all the other frogs feel fine and are also threatening to sue the fuck out of you if you do jump.
throwaway98237 10y ago
#SnowdenIsMyHero
keithly 10y ago
"Household staff" is a familiar term to many WSJ subscribers, I'd guess.

by cft 10y ago

prostoalex 10y ago

The whistleblower laws allow some degree of anonynimity precisely for the reasons above. From the article: "Using an alias, Tyler Shultz contacted New York state’s public-health lab ..." "... Mr. Shultz began speaking to a Journal reporter as a confidential source." "... regulatory complaint Mr. Shultz had filed under the alias Colin Ramirez" The decision to confront the CEO personally was his own, he could've chosen the anonymous path all along.

eli 10y ago
What whistleblower law?
- grzm 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_th...
  - eli 10y ago
    That does not apply. He isn't a federal employee.
    - grzm 10y ago
      You're right, he's not a federal employee. There are protections in place for private employees as well, though it varies by state, employment situation, and a lot more details I'm ignorant of.
cft 10y ago
An anonymous whistleblower is likely to be ignored however. I edited my reply to include this most likely option. Schultz Jr was contacted in LinkedIn by a WSJ reporter, he did not hide his identity because he likely (empirically) realized that his anonymous complaint would be ignored.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  Based on what data? The government has set up a bunch of venues specifically for anonymous whistleblowers, e.g. https://www.whistleblower.gov/overview/submitatip/ https://www.whistleblower.gov/overview/submitatip/ https://www.irs.gov/uac/whistleblower-informant-award https://www.irs.gov/uac/whistleblower-informant-award https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3714.pdf https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3714.pdf so there's at least some process behind the scenes rather than > /dev/null He didn't have to hide his identity from a WSJ reporter because journalistic sources are protected by similar set of laws. To the readers of WSJ he was just a "confidential source".
  - cft 10y ago
    In the article it says "In March 2014, he anonymously emailed his complaint to New York officials.." Then the article says: "In March 2015, Tyler Shultz was contacted by a Journal reporter through the professional network LinkedIn." Something doesn't match up here. I can only assume that his anonymous complaint did not reach the desired effect in a year, and he went via other channels, using his own renouned last name.
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      Yeah, I wish they provided more details on this. It would also seem rational for the investigative reporter to ping 20-30 LinkedIn contacts who listed Theranos as their employer in hopes that 2-3 would reply, so maybe he wasn't the only one the reporter contacted.
    - rbobby 10y ago
      The reporter likely contacted a bunch of Theranos employees via LinkedIn (and probably sorted the list based on former/current). Was Tyler the only confidential source to talk to the WSJ? Probably not. because of that whole two sources rule good journalists follow.
danso 10y ago
> The decision to confront the CEO personally was his own, he could've chosen the anonymous path all along. It's worth pointing out that Shultz seemed to have acted in good faith initially, and apparently didn't think anonymity was justified: > Mr. Shultz says he took his concerns directly to Ms. Holmes. When they met in early 2014, she encouraged him to talk to Daniel Young, a Theranos vice president in charge of biostatistics. He seemed to have acted with optimistic intentions for Theranos. It was only later that he sent a more scathing email, after which he waited for a few days, got the arrogant reply from the Theranos president, and then quit. Given all of the professional and personal reasons he had to hope the best for Theranos, he had plenty of excuses to just let things go with a it's-above-my-paygrade mentality. Because it was, on paper, above his paygrade, and his boss and coworkers have the prestigious degrees and engineering experience to argue that Tyler is just mistaken. It's not easy in a cult-like company to call out shit even as/after the shit hits the fan. But it seems rarer to be the frog that jumps out of the warm water, when all the other frogs feel fine and are also threatening to sue the fuck out of you if you do jump.

throwaway98237 10y ago

#SnowdenIsMyHero

keithly 10y ago

"Household staff" is a familiar term to many WSJ subscribers, I'd guess.