7 ms·

> ... which is important because even with the protections afforded by Dodd-Frank, it's a very real possibility that you won't work in the finance industry agai

> ... which is important because even with the protections afforded by Dodd-Frank, it's a very real possibility that you won't work in the finance industry again. If nobody will hire a whistleblower, that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide.

ambicapter 7y ago
Even if you're not responsible for something that would need to be reported, how certain can you be that none of your bosses or underlings are? Pretty safe to assume the worst.
- BinaryIdiot 7y ago
  That's incredibly dystopian. Sure, some people will end up breaking the law without others noticing but you make it sound like it's incredibly common. I don't think that's actually the case.
  - ambicapter 7y ago
    Most people commit, on average, 3 felonies a day. I can't link you the time but I heard it here [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
jedimastert 7y ago
> If nobody will hire a whistleblower, that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide. That statement has a "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" kind of vibe to me.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  The statement is misused. It was applied to private citizens (private <--> privacy) while companies are working for the public good (hence the accountability, regulations, taxation...).
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    No it's not. A whistle-blower is someone who's been proven to go out of their way to be a government informant. Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right? It's all downside and no upside. The original comment is using the exact same logic as "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". It's just that we don't care because corporate citizens do not get the same rights as actual human citizens.
    - throwaway55554 7y ago
      > A whistle-blower is someone who's been proven to go out of their way to be a government informant. Or, you know, they could have just been privy to information that the company they work for was doing something shady. > Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right? This is because you have the mindset that whistleblowers are little snitches just waiting for the opportunity to tattle. If a company is breaking laws, they should be punished. Right?
      - skookumchuck 7y ago
        > If a company is breaking laws, they should be punished. Right? What about that professor who pointed out that on average, most people commit 3 felonies a day? It's all a matter of what the authorities decide to prosecute. Did you come to a full and complete stop the last time you encountered a stop sign?
        eeZah7Ux 7y ago
        This is a strawman. The discussion is about whistleblowing real crimes.
        skookumchuck 7y ago
        What's a "real crime" is hardly clear-cut, why we have trials, and often up to the judge.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
Spot on. It's very telling that companies (that often claim to follow ethic guidelines and so on) don't rush to hire a whistleblower. On the contrary, whistleblowers go unemployed.
woofie11 7y ago
That assumes: 1. The whistleblower are always right and the company is always wrong. I've seen it go both ways. On an engineering project, a junior engineer misinterprets something, and then starts sending upset, angry emails with odd allegation. If there is any litigation about anything later, if those emails come up in discovery, you've got a multimillion dollar problem. 2. The company won't retaliate otherwise. In whistleblowing instances I've seen, the company engages in a smear campaign on the engineer. Having a billion dollar corporation hire a PI to investigate you, and then spread rumours about you to the media can kill a career. Is Julian Assange a sexual predator? Or was he set up? No one knows.
bediger4000 7y ago
> that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide. I for one, am willing to go with this. But I will add that managers (in lots of industries) take exceptional delight in messing with their employees. I'm not sure why, other than a lust for arbitrary power, but it's there. Some aerospace companies are legendary for making engineers work over holidays, and/or on Saturdays, for example. I worked in a smaller company where the owner felt he had a right to dictate how his employees should vote. In 1995. Control issues may be more prevalent than skeletons.
- skookumchuck 7y ago
  > I worked in a smaller company where the owner felt he had a right to dictate how his employees should vote. Since we have a secret ballot (which is a good thing) in the US, how on earth could anyone "dictate" who you vote for?
  - specialist 7y ago
    Postal balloting, aka vote by mail in our state. Plenty of cases of "ballot parties" in unions, military, churches, job sites, etc.
    - skookumchuck 7y ago
      You're under no obligation to show your vote to anyone. Voting by mail only keeps records that you voted - not who you voted for - and that information is certainly not shared with your boss. All voting booths I've seen had a curtain for privacy.
      - specialist 7y ago
        I don't follow. A ballot records votes. Otherwise it's not a ballot. Are you saying we live in a world without coercion? That various organizations haven't hosted ballot parties?
  - bediger4000 7y ago
gnopgnip 7y ago
It affects other industries too. In the military there is a similar stigma around reporting sexual assault or rape.
skookumchuck 7y ago
> If nobody will hire a whistleblower, that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide. Would you have second thoughts about marrying someone who went through an ugly divorce? Sure, the person says the ex-spouse was the bad one. Do you accept that unquestioningly?
wolfgke 7y ago
> If nobody will hire a whistleblower, that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide. In German language, there actually exists no native word for "whistleblower" (one uses the English word). The German word is "Denunziant" (denunciator - I don't know whether the English word has the same negative connotation as the German one). With the experience with the state security service (Stasi) of the GDR, people really well-understand why they don't want a denunciator in their company even if the respective person does not plan to denounce, since if there exists a potential denunciator at the workplace, everybody has to live in potential fear.

ambicapter 7y ago

Even if you're not responsible for something that would need to be reported, how certain can you be that none of your bosses or underlings are? Pretty safe to assume the worst.

BinaryIdiot 7y ago
That's incredibly dystopian. Sure, some people will end up breaking the law without others noticing but you make it sound like it's incredibly common. I don't think that's actually the case.
- ambicapter 7y ago
  Most people commit, on average, 3 felonies a day. I can't link you the time but I heard it here [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

jedimastert 7y ago

> If nobody will hire a whistleblower, that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide. That statement has a "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" kind of vibe to me.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
The statement is misused. It was applied to private citizens (private <--> privacy) while companies are working for the public good (hence the accountability, regulations, taxation...).
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  No it's not. A whistle-blower is someone who's been proven to go out of their way to be a government informant. Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right? It's all downside and no upside. The original comment is using the exact same logic as "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". It's just that we don't care because corporate citizens do not get the same rights as actual human citizens.
  - throwaway55554 7y ago
    > A whistle-blower is someone who's been proven to go out of their way to be a government informant. Or, you know, they could have just been privy to information that the company they work for was doing something shady. > Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right? This is because you have the mindset that whistleblowers are little snitches just waiting for the opportunity to tattle. If a company is breaking laws, they should be punished. Right?
    - skookumchuck 7y ago
      > If a company is breaking laws, they should be punished. Right? What about that professor who pointed out that on average, most people commit 3 felonies a day? It's all a matter of what the authorities decide to prosecute. Did you come to a full and complete stop the last time you encountered a stop sign?
      - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
        This is a strawman. The discussion is about whistleblowing real crimes.
        skookumchuck 7y ago
        What's a "real crime" is hardly clear-cut, why we have trials, and often up to the judge.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

Spot on. It's very telling that companies (that often claim to follow ethic guidelines and so on) don't rush to hire a whistleblower. On the contrary, whistleblowers go unemployed.

woofie11 7y ago

That assumes: 1. The whistleblower are always right and the company is always wrong. I've seen it go both ways. On an engineering project, a junior engineer misinterprets something, and then starts sending upset, angry emails with odd allegation. If there is any litigation about anything later, if those emails come up in discovery, you've got a multimillion dollar problem. 2. The company won't retaliate otherwise. In whistleblowing instances I've seen, the company engages in a smear campaign on the engineer. Having a billion dollar corporation hire a PI to investigate you, and then spread rumours about you to the media can kill a career. Is Julian Assange a sexual predator? Or was he set up? No one knows.

bediger4000 7y ago

> that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide. I for one, am willing to go with this. But I will add that managers (in lots of industries) take exceptional delight in messing with their employees. I'm not sure why, other than a lust for arbitrary power, but it's there. Some aerospace companies are legendary for making engineers work over holidays, and/or on Saturdays, for example. I worked in a smaller company where the owner felt he had a right to dictate how his employees should vote. In 1995. Control issues may be more prevalent than skeletons.

skookumchuck 7y ago
> I worked in a smaller company where the owner felt he had a right to dictate how his employees should vote. Since we have a secret ballot (which is a good thing) in the US, how on earth could anyone "dictate" who you vote for?
- specialist 7y ago
  Postal balloting, aka vote by mail in our state. Plenty of cases of "ballot parties" in unions, military, churches, job sites, etc.
  - skookumchuck 7y ago
    You're under no obligation to show your vote to anyone. Voting by mail only keeps records that you voted - not who you voted for - and that information is certainly not shared with your boss. All voting booths I've seen had a curtain for privacy.
    - specialist 7y ago
      I don't follow. A ballot records votes. Otherwise it's not a ballot. Are you saying we live in a world without coercion? That various organizations haven't hosted ballot parties?
- bediger4000 7y ago

gnopgnip 7y ago

It affects other industries too. In the military there is a similar stigma around reporting sexual assault or rape.

skookumchuck 7y ago

> If nobody will hire a whistleblower, that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide. Would you have second thoughts about marrying someone who went through an ugly divorce? Sure, the person says the ex-spouse was the bad one. Do you accept that unquestioningly?

wolfgke 7y ago

> If nobody will hire a whistleblower, that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide. In German language, there actually exists no native word for "whistleblower" (one uses the English word). The German word is "Denunziant" (denunciator - I don't know whether the English word has the same negative connotation as the German one). With the experience with the state security service (Stasi) of the GDR, people really well-understand why they don't want a denunciator in their company even if the respective person does not plan to denounce, since if there exists a potential denunciator at the workplace, everybody has to live in potential fear.