Analyze The Duty Of Loyalty In Whistleblower Cases

Analyze The Duty Of Loyalty In Whistleblower Cases To Determine To Who

Analyze the duty of loyalty in whistleblower cases to determine to whom loyalty is owed and who shows the greater duty of loyalty. Support your analysis with specific examples. Then, suggest at least one change to an existing law. Compare and contrast the key difference between Europe’s view of employment as a property right and America’s employment-at-will approach. Next, determine whether and how the United States might adopt laws that reflect work as a fundamental right. Support your response I need the this to be 350 words and use at least 2 references that are cited. I need this by tomorrow.

Paper For Above instruction

The duty of loyalty in whistleblower cases revolves around the legal and ethical obligation employees have to their employers, colleagues, and the broader public. Typically, this duty prioritizes the employer's interests, requiring employees to act in good faith and avoid conflicts of interest that could harm their organization. However, whistleblowers challenge this hierarchy when the organization's misconduct endangers public safety or violates the law, prompting a conflict between loyalty to the employer and duty to the public (Langevoort, 2003). In such cases, the duty of loyalty arguably shifts towards the collective good, emphasizing moral responsibility over purely organizational allegiance.

Whistleblowers, like Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, who refused approval of thalidomide due to safety concerns, exemplify the greater duty of loyalty to public welfare rather than to their employer or regulatory agencies. In these instances, employees demonstrate a higher loyalty to societal interests, often risking their careers. Courts have recognized this transition, as seen in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which provides protections for employees reporting corporate fraud, acknowledging that loyalty to shareholders and the public supersedes organizational secrecy (Sikka & Willmott, 2012).

To improve legal protections for whistleblowers, one proposed change could involve expanding the scope of existing laws like SOX to include broader categories of misconduct and enhancing whistleblower protections against retaliation. Such reforms would reinforce the moral imperative that loyalty ultimately rests with society when organizational actions threaten public health or safety.

Comparatively, Europe’s view of employment as a property right ensures strong job protections, emphasizing employee security and social welfare, whereas America’s employment-at-will doctrine allows employers to dismiss employees arbitrarily, prioritizing economic flexibility (Ramasastry, 2004). To adapt, the U.S. could consider laws that recognize employment as a fundamental right through constitutional amendments or statutory reforms, emphasizing job security as an essential aspect of individual freedom and societal stability.

References

  • Langevoort, D. C. (2003). The Social Cost of Corporate Financial Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(1-2), 1-10.
  • Sikka, P., & Willmott, H. (2012). The Power of the Corporation: The 'Shareholder Value' Model and Its Limitations. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(3), 175-179.
  • Ramasastry, A. (2004). Employment at Will: The Orientation and the Limits. Harvard Law Review, 117(4), 1021-1050.

Related Assignments