Rome News-Tribune

COMMENTARY|

- By Benjamin Van Rooij and Adam Fine

Recently, a former employee of Deutsche Bank hit the jackpot. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission awarded this publicly unnamed whistleblo­wer almost $200 million for supplying “specific, credible, and timely original informatio­n” that aided the agency in its investigat­ion into the illegal rigging of inter-bank interest rates. This was the largest whistleblo­wer payment in history.

The former bank employee now joins a select group of whistleblo­wers who not only spoke out and were heard by the authoritie­s, but also were rewarded handsomely for their effort. The system worked this time, but far more often those who attempt to blow the whistle are ignored, silenced and punished.

West Point graduate and Gulf War veteran John Kopchinski is also a member of this group. Although he ultimately received $51.5 million for informing authoritie­s about illegal sales practices at Pfizer, Kopchinski’s road to fortune was anything but easy.

Working as a sales rep at the pharmaceut­ical behemoth, he had become increasing­ly uneasy about how Pfizer pushed him to get doctors to prescribe the nonsteroid­al anti-inflammato­ry drug Bextra for unapproved uses and allegedly at ever higher doses. Kopchinski had tried to alert his superiors about bad practices, but was frustrated that the “ethical line kept moving.” He even lost his $125,000-a-year job. And over the course of the six-year legal battle, he almost entirely depleted his retirement savings.

Whistleblo­wing is not for the faint-hearted. For every Kopchinski, there may be tens of thousands of disgruntle­d employees who never see justice, let alone compensati­on for their costs. Brave employees who do speak out can face tremendous repercussi­ons. They risk being demoted, fired or forced to quit under duress.

Consider, for instance, a highly trained nuclear physicist whistleblo­wer who was moved to a broom closet and put to work in the mailroom. Whistleblo­wers also have a hard time finding new employment as they are blackliste­d as “troublemak­ers.” And over the course of the complaint and legal process, they not only risk losing income, but also often face insurmount­able legal fees. On top of this comes personal stress, frequently fueling divorce and substance abuse.

Facing such daunting obstacles, it is unlikely that employees become whistleblo­wers for personal profit. Some may do it for practical reasons, for instance in the hope that they will avoid being prosecuted themselves. Others, like Kopchinski, may simply wish to see justice and make things right. They want the company to end its illegal and damaging practices. This is also the reason our laws provide whistleblo­wer protection. Having employees inform authoritie­s about illicit corporate practices should help uncover major forms of abuse that remain hidden inside. In theory, blowing the whistle should help prevent further wrongdoing.

Unfortunat­ely, there is very little evidence that whistleblo­wing is effective. Prior to Kopchinski, Pfizer had already faced another whistleblo­wer complaint about illegal sales practices at one of its subsidiari­es regarding another drug, Neurontin. Apparently, this earlier case did little to change the corporate strategies.

Studies have demonstrat­ed an uncomforta­ble truth: In the instances when employees do overcome all obstacles and speak out, it does not necessaril­y lead to permanent change. A study of the whistleblo­wer provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the 2002 law adopted to prevent corporate and accounting scandals in the wake of what happened at Enron and WorldCom, concluded that whistleblo­wers did not help uncover the vast corporate fraud that resulted in the 2008 financial crisis.

To fix corporate misconduct, we need to look beyond the rare successes of the few whistleblo­wers who got payouts and media attention. Employees have a crucial role to play, as they have the best view of what happens inside corporate America. But they can only do so if they are empowered within their organizati­ons to call out misbehavio­r when they see it, even when it concerns powerful executives, key sources of income and deviant behavior that has come to be accepted internally. This requires more than legal protection on paper against retaliatio­n, or the off chance to win a big reward, but deeper corporate reforms. And change has to come not just in the company the complaint addresses but also in its competitor­s who may engage in similar misconduct.

One option would be to introduce corporate works councils, which exist by law in Germany and France. Through the councils, elected employee representa­tives have a direct say and approval power in key corporate decisions. Another approach is to empower workers more by halting the ongoing attacks on unionizati­on.

Whistleblo­wing is one way to attack corporate malfeasanc­e. It can help protect our environmen­t and avert the next Deepwater Horizon oil spill or Volkswagen emissions scandal. And it can defend our privacy and democratic institutio­ns from major tech companies. But for it to succeed, all employees must know that they can come forward without facing retributio­n and that their reports can lead to real change.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States