Cultures of greed, corruption and misrepresentation helped to facilitate a massive transfer of wealth, substantial enough to suggest that a denial of awareness on the part of personnel at such organizations is nothing short of implausible. Therefore, we can presume that an absence or real protections for would-be whistleblowers in private enterprises would help to accommodate a wave of corruption every bit as destructive to the public as any government indiscretion such as the Whistleblower Protection Act was designed to address. Beyond this, there are indications that the federal legislation lacks the proper mechanisms even to serve as a template for that which might address the failures in private regulation. The article by Fischer (1991) provides myriad examples in which exceptions and clauses relating to the Whistleblower Protection Act have made it essentially toothless. Specifications such as that which denotes that only certain 'covered employees' qualify for the protections afforded by the act are indicative of a piece of legislation deeply laden with loopholes. As Fisher indicates, this is especially problematic because these loopholes create a false sense of security for whistleblowers that they are somehow protected from retaliatory action. The anecdotal indications provided by Fisher would suggest that the various exceptions written into the WPA have made it all but impotent for those intending to intervene with unethical company practices. The outcome then, is that leaders in management or personnel who attempt to report wrongdoing under the assumption of protection are particularly vulnerable to job loss or retaliation.

Overcoming Ethical Dilemmas:

There is a clear ethical imperative to take some action to better facilitate intervention in the face of systemic corruption. At present, this must take the form of better and more pervasive legislation promoting more effective and more widely administered protection for whistleblowers. From the federal perspective invoked by the WPA, there remains a direct interest in refining existing laws to make these protections more pronounced and realistic. Thus, a designated congressional team "is acting promptly to pass federal whistleblower rights as free standing legislation, after...

Thus, for those in a position of leadership that object to certain ethical divergences which have become endemic to a company culture, OSHA may actually be an effective avenue for consultation. According to the United States Department of Labor (2008), OSHA "administers the whistleblowing provisions of sixteen other statutes, protecting employees who report violations of various trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, rail, consumer product and securities laws." (USDoL, 1)
Conclusion:

This demonstrates that there are a variety of channels separate from the overarching Whistleblower Protection Act which may be accessed in the event that one faces an ethical dilemma in the workplace. However, the WPA is also the most sweeping and important legislative acts in this regard, and should thus be considered a candidate both for constant refinement and for better application in the private context. Ultimately, the aims of the Act represent what should be the ambitions of the Securities and Exchange Commission where private enterprises are concerned. If the rationale of the WPA is for the protection of the public good and the public interest against public corruption, than those who serve to steward our private organizations must be made accountable for the same good and interest.

Works Cited:

Fisher, B.D. (1991). Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989: A False Hope for Whistleblowers. Rutgers Law Review, 43(355).

Government Accountability Project (GAP). 2009). Whistleblower Protection Act & Amendments. Whistlblower.org.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDoL). (2008). The Whistleblower Protection Program. OSHA.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (1989). Whistleblower Protection Act Information. SEC.gov.

Whitaker, L.P. (2007). The Whistleblower Protection Act: An Overview. Congressional Research Service.