Analyzing and Assessing Whistleblowing Companies

¶ … whistleblowing that occurred in publicly traded corporations in the past year.

Whistleblowing

The term "whistleblowing" refers to an attempt made by an employee or ex-employee of a firm to warn the public regarding any serious danger(s) or wrongdoing(s) masked or created by the firm. Corporate and healthcare literature cites multiple definitions of the term, all of which highlight the significance of advocacy (or protection of somebody who is prone to being harmed). The definition, for this paper, will differentiate reporting the issue within the company from external whistleblowing (Lachman, 2008). Typically, whistleblowers are perceived as courageous persons who oppose a company's practices. Whether in the healthcare or corporate field, the examples are analogous to the Glazer and Glazer's analyses of sixty-four whistleblowers, and The Insider, a movie that portrayed the tobacco industry's maneuvers to conceal tobacco's addictive property. Several examples (like the one of a registered nurse, Barry Adams) reveal that those who confront a company are faced with adversity.

The issue of whistleblowers, who expose potential organizational wrongdoings, has sparked considerable controversy. Some regard them as noble individuals, ready to make personal and professional sacrifices to uncover harmful, wasteful, or deceitful organizational practices. Meanwhile, others claim that they are generally displeased employees who wildly and with malicious intent, accuse companies they believe have maltreated them, for attaining some personal selfish end (Barnett, 1992). As is typically the case, the truth, perhaps, lies at a point between the above two extremes. While whistleblowers do expose true problems of authority misuse by governmental and corporate decision-makers, they frequently suffer retribution for their moral resistance. But, often, whistleblowers' accusations may be erroneous and their intent sometimes malicious. Their actions are disruptive to organizational functioning and operations, and can cause serious damage to wrongfully accused persons. Irrespective of their personal opinion of this subject, corporate policymakers need to be objective when addressing it. It cannot be disregarded, because of the potential destructive consequences for the company as well as its employees.

Ameriprise

Michael Loscalso, ex-branch manager at Ameriprise, who started his career in the year 1989, sued the corporation, claiming they fired him for bringing up serious accusations with regard to the company's broker supervision practices. His continual complaints to the management team regarding practices like forgery and fraud that violated Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and rules, allegedly, ended in his retaliatory firing. Mr. Loscalso has been seeking unnamed damages from the firm. The suit reveals that Mr. Loscalso's annual income was $260,000, and he supervised over sixty unlicensed and licensed personnel and fifty registered representatives (Ameriprise Whistleblower Sues, Saying Management Breaks Law Frequently). Further alleged by the suit is the claim that the petitioner reported infringements of SEC regulations and rules -- a protected activity -- to the management team, at several instances, in the course of his employment as well as immediately before being fired. He repeatedly informed superiors of breaches of SEC principles. The violations included unlicensed sales, fraud, forgery, unlicensed document-signing, data security and client privacy violations, overpricing its services in financial planning, and inadequately advising clients on financial planning (Ameriprise Whistleblower Sues, Saying Management Breaks Law Frequently). One example is Mr. Loscalso's reporting of the signing of as many as thirty annuity applications by the assistant of a broker rather than by the broker himself. The company did not take any serious action except requiring a warning letter. In another instance, the petitioner claims he reported the illegal act of permitting the unlicensed assistant of a financial consultant to carry out client business transactions by utilizing the broker's ID to process and complete trades. Hence, the whistleblower's decision was justified.