A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:26 am Post subject: Do Whistleblowers Suffer Economic Hardship?
Is it human nature to overlook unconscionable behavior in the workplace because it's instinctively obvious to everyone that institutions and corporations tend to hire yes-men and fire whistleblowers? Do you have to play politics at your job or church? Are you a team player?
Do conscientious individuals ever suffer economic hardship for acting responsibly? Are whistleblowers respected?
I know that I have suffered financially because of my propensities for conscientious behavior. I believe in whistleblowing and have been automatically barred from jobs that I desperately wanted, and needed, but I was not even permitted to apply for, because of my religious convictions. I have requested and was denied permission to explain the extenuating circumstances behind my criminal record. It was out of the question.
I wonder about how many other jobs and missed opportunities have passed me by because of the job applications that do ask for explanations for convictions of misdemeanors and felonies. My predicament is that I have no way to clearly explain my criminal trespassing conviction without hinting that I might fit the profile of an obnoxious religious nut or troublesome whistleblower. If most Christians despise my minority religious view, how greatly repulsed might secular nonbelievers be?
Here is my current explanation for having a class B misdemeanor that I give to potential employers.
Letter of Explanation
Current date.
To Whom It May Concern:
I have never been convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or felony, involving moral turpitude. I do have a criminal record that needs explaining. There was an incident in 1995 for which I was arrested for trespassing at a church. The church is in Richardson, TX and is part of a sisterhood of churches that I officially belonged to since the date of my baptism at the age of 13. I have never been disfellowshipped (or excommunicated) from any church in my denomination.
This denomination has an official list of doctrinal beliefs, all acceptable to me. Not all churches of this denomination approve of the official statement of faith. It’s acceptable to disagree with it. The Richardson church had teachers aggressively opposed to a doctrine called Christ’s substitutionary atonement. That’s a very ordinary thing in my denomination. I opposed these teachers and the church leadership in the most innocent ways imaginable. I would have given anything to have them follow the church rules and try to disfellowship me for my orthodox faith and Christian conduct. I believe that the true gospel would have been exalted in the process. Instead, they just conspired together and threatened to have me arrested for trespassing if I continued attending the church.
State law recognizes a church hierarchy as the owners of church property and, therefore, church clerics have a perfectly legal right to demand obeisance from church members. If you refuse to comply, these unscrupulous clerics have every legal right to appeal to the state and have you arrested for attending church (i.e., coming onto private property). Church law condemns all deception, secrecy and guile. It says that the congregation must decide on how to discipline members. I decided that it was needful for the church members to see the importance I attach to salvation issues and to protesting underhanded clerics who only profess to respect the gospel and the golden rule. I ignored the threats, returned to church and, as I expected, was arrested for trespassing.
As I see it, my choosing to be arrested for disobeying a decree of a head elder, to leave the property of a church for which I was a member, is just as commendable as the passive resistance of Rosa Parks, a black woman and paying customer, accepting arrest on a bus that was supposed to take her home. On that fateful evening of December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Ala., Rosa Parks was ordered to give up her seat to a white passenger and she refused to do so.
Joined: 11 Feb 2004 Posts: 20 Location: Sterling, MA
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:20 am Post subject: Re: Do Whistleblowers Suffer Economic Hardship?
Hello, Forum folks,
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Do conscientious individuals ever suffer economic hardship for acting responsibly? Are whistleblowers respected?
I know that I have suffered financially because of my propensities for conscientious behavior...
I wonder about how many other jobs and missed opportunities have passed me by because of the job applications that do ask for explanations for convictions of misdemeanors and felonies. My predicament is that I have no way to clearly explain my criminal trespassing conviction without hinting that I might fit the profile of an obnoxious religious nut or troublesome whistleblower. If most Christians despise my minority religious view, how greatly repulsed might secular nonbelievers be?
As I read Eugene’s posting, I began to sort through my mind for Scriptural instances of “whistle-blowing.” Initially, I couldn’t think of any. As I continued mulling it over, though, I began to realize that Jesus, all of the Biblical prophets, the apostles, and most Biblical characters themselves were in varying degree “whistle-blowers.” One of Jesus’ purposes was to expose the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees to the people of Israel. Their mismanagement of the Vineyard of God was infamous (Matt. 21:33-45, Mk. 12:1-12, Lk. 20:9-18; cf Isa. 5:1-7)! Was John the Baptist a whistle-blower: preaching in the wilderness of Judea, before the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 3:7-13), and before Herod and Herodius (Matt. 14:3-11)? The conclusion is yes. It seems that the witness of Scripture is replete with God acting as a whistle-blower revealing the iniquity of Satan and his government, as well as fallen mankind. Happily, God is Himself the one that exposes the corruption, but with a salvific purpose; He then Judges all with perfect justice and mercy.
Spiritual whistle-blowing, done with Godly (i.e. Christ-like) motive(s), is honorable.
Regarding the ‘secular’ world: sadly, conscientious individuals do indeed suffer economic hardship, at times, for doing what their conscience—properly—dictates. There are laws now in place to protect employees (in certain circumstances) from loss of their jobs due to whistle-blowing. But what can be done regarding a situation that is not like the ‘norm?’
Eugene’s experience (this is a hyperlink) is quite disturbing to me… I am a Seventh-day Adventist, I worship regularly in a home church, and enjoy the freedoms that my church and government are rightly designed to allow. Eugene has been disallowed those same privileges, because he dared to question the practice and preaching of non-orthodox beliefs by some that had (and have) hijacked that particular church.
As stated in Genes posted “Letter of Explanation,” what the church did—in a technical sense—was legal. Where I become rather incensed is in the way that the church, both local and institutional, decided that they would forego the Christian principles that they are bound by God, Scripture and conscience to uphold, to instead subject a member to arrest by the civil authorities. This action was taken despite the denomination’s well-established procedures for dealing with such issues .
Was (or is) there consideration whatsoever, that the church’s inappropriate behavior and actions (regardless of Gene’s actions, since there was no physical threat to anyone) could damage and possibly even destroy a person’s career and earning potential?That is a very serious act—and one that the civil courts (the very instrument that the church itself chose to use) have been taking quite seriously in recent years.
As a Design Engineer, some of my education concerned management, the business-government relationship, general business ethics and legal issues. I feel that the articles below, gleaned from those studies, have important relevance to Eugene’s case. The first two segments (above the horizontal page break) concern why, when and how to properly and ethically “blow the whistle.” These steps certainly have a proper place in the decision of why, when and how to blow the whistle in a spiritual/religious/ecclesiastical instance. The last two (below the horizontal page break) concern the job itself as a property right (and property rights are US Constitutionally-protected rights), and rights to private property in general. For the reader’s edification, Peter F. Drucker (“The Job as Property Right”) is widely recognized as the foremost management consultant in the world, and has been so for very many years. The largest corporations in the US send contingents of top-level managers to his home, to simply listen to his musings and advice (he’s quite elderly now). He has no space to have these gatherings; the executives cram themselves in and sit on his staircase, etc.—wherever they can find space.
Here are the book sections:
"Loyalty and Whistle-blowing"
“…A member of an organization is sometimes faced with a situation where superiors seem to be blind to unethical acts. This presents a difficult dilemma…”
“When to Blow the Whistle”
“Since opportunities for whistle-blowing are becoming more common and the stakes are bigger, it is important to give some attention to the special conditions that would allow whistle-blowing. According to the analysis of Sissela Bok, to be legitimate, whistle-blowing should meet several criteria:
1. The purpose should be moral: to benefit the public interest.
2. What is protested should be of major importance and should be specific.
3. The facts of the case must be certain; they should be checked and rechecked.
4. All other avenues for change within the organization must be already exhausted.
5. The whistle-blower should be above reproach. In particular, the whistle-blower should not gain anything through revealing the information. Ideally the individual should openly accept responsibility for the whistle-blowing.
Let us examine these criteria. The first demands that the purpose of whistle-blowing should not be to attract attention, to seek revenge, or to achieve some personal goal. In many cases, whistle-blowers are trying to wreak vengeance on a supervisor or company that they believe has been unfair to them. Perceptions regarding one’s own grievances can be biased and do not provide a solid basis for whistle-blowing. Instead, the revelation of wrongdoing should be for the common good.
Second, whistle-blowing requires that the wrongdoing is a serious breach of ethics (emphasis author’s). Much is at stake, and the action should not be taken lightly. The unethical act protested should be a specific act, not a vague attitude which is hard to document.
Third, the facts of the case must be ascertained, and the evidence must be double-checked.
The fourth criterion demands that superiors and other higher officials in the organization who might be able to rectify the situation have been informed and that they still refuse to do anything. This requires going to the president or even the board before going to an outside party…
The fifth criterion is that the whistle-blower should not benefit from the revelation. If one’s career is benefited or one makes money from exposing the situation (e.g., money made from writing a best-selling expose’), one’s motives are suspect. Considerations of self-interest can unconsciously enter into one’s deliberations. To compensate for possible personal bias, a person should seek considerable objective advice so as not to blow the whistle on the basis of misinformation or partial information. The potential whistle-blower should also be aware of all the arguments for and against whistle-blowing before going to an outside party. Ideally, the whistle-blower should be willing to accept responsibility for providing the information. Granted this takes courage, since the person’s job may be on the line, yet it can be a test of one’s motives. Anonymous informers are justifiably not often trusted…
A serious deterrent to whistle-blowing is the well-known fact that most whistle-blowers are penalized by being fired, demoted, or shunted off to an unimportant job. They are labeled as “boat rockers” and “squealers.” A series of recent court decisions has begun to provide some protection for whistle-blowers. Employees now cannot be fired for whistle-blowing, at least in certain restricted circumstances.
On the other hand, as any experienced manager or student of organizations knows, only when management fails does whistle-blowing become necessary… Whistle-blowing becomes an option when supervisors do not listen to subordinates and their legitimate concerns. These concerns are not always well founded, but it is essential that they be heard… In short, legitimate whistle-blowing is a sign that the organization is not performing well, has poor management, or both.” (Gerald F. Cavanagh, “American Business Values,” Third Edition, 1990, Prentice-Hall, Inc, pp 199-202)
_____________________
“The Job as Property Right”
“…The West, with the United States in the lead, is rapidly converting the individual’s job into a new property right…
The vehicle for this transformation in the United States is not the union contract or laws mandating severance pay as in many European countries. The vehicle is the lawsuit. First came the suit alleging discrimination, whether in hiring an employee, in firing, in promotion, in pay, or in job assignment—discrimination on grounds of race or sex or age or handicap. But increasingly these suits do not even allege discrimination, but violation of “due process.” They claim that the employer has to treat the employee’s job, including the employee’s expectations for pay and promotion, as something the enjoyments of which and of its fruits can be diminished or taken away only on the basis of preset and objective standards and through an established process which includes an impartial review and the right to appeal. But these are the features that characterize “property” in the history of the law. In fact, they are the only features a right must possess to be called property in the Western legal tradition (emphasis author’s).
And as few managements yet seem to realize, in practically every such suit the plaintiff wins and the employer loses.
This development was predictable. Indeed, it was inevitable. And it is irreversible. It is also not “novel” or “radical.” What gives access to a society’s productive resources—gives access thereby to a livelihood and to social function and status constitutes a major, if not the major, avenue to economic independence however modest—has always become a “property right” in Western society. And this is what the job has become, and especially the knowledge worker’s job as a manager or a professional.” (Peter F. Drucker, “The Frontiers of Management,” 1986, E. P. Dutton, p. 190)
“John Locke and the Right to Private Property”
“Locke was concerned with various natural rights, but the right to which he devoted most of his energy was the right to private property. Locke held that an individual has a right to self-preservation and so has a right to those things that are required for this purpose. Individuals require property so that they may feed and clothe their families and themselves. A person’s labor is what confers primary title to property.” (Gerald F. Cavanagh, “American Business Values, Third Edition, 1990, Prentice-Hall, Inc, p. 76)
Matters connected with the church are to be kept within its own borders. If a Christian is abused, he is to take it patiently; if defrauded, he is not to appeal to courts of justice. Rather let him suffer loss and wrong.
God will deal with the unworthy church member who defrauds his brother or the cause of God; the Christian need not contend for his rights. God will deal with the one who violates these rights. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." Rom. 12:19. An account is kept of all these matters, and for all the Lord declares that He will avenge. He will bring every work into judgment. —Selected Messages, Book 3, pp. 299-300.
The New Testament—especially the gospels and the book of Acts—elaborates to a great extent on the abuses that Christ and the apostles suffered through the underhanded policies of the Jews. It is unlikely that any Christian lobby sought to file a grievance in courts of Roman law to obtain redress for the many instances of abuse and injustice that Christians were suffering from the official, recognized Jewish church. More significantly, the apostles said nothing to discourage the New Testament's decidedly anti-Jewish testimonies from being circulated widely throughout the empire.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
Was (or is) there consideration whatsoever, that the church’s inappropriate behavior and actions (regardless of Gene’s actions, since there was no physical threat to anyone)