Talk:Whistleblower protection in the United States/Archive 1

April 2011 comment
This page was created to discuss and disclose worker protection. Nanoatzin (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

New section on exemptions and limitations
, To broaden the content of this article to a general discussion of whistleblower protections within the U.S. away from the current focus on procedure, I think it would be helpful to include a section that details exemptions from and limitations to the existing legal protections. I've done some research on this and drafted up some wording that could be added to the article. Rather than adding it straightaway, it would be great if other editors could first review what I've suggested below. I'm cautious only because I have included Heritage.org as a source and I work for The Heritage Foundation, I want to make sure this addition is ok.


 * There are certain limitations and exemptions to the legal protections for whistleblowers in the U.S. With regard to federal legislation, the broadest law is the Whistleblower Protection Act, however its protections only apply to federal employees. Both public and private employees may be protected under topic-specific federal laws such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act but such laws cover only a narrow, specific area of unlawful activity. Private sector employees reporting violations of federal laws that have no whistleblower protection provisions or those reporting violations of state laws are not protected by federal whistleblower protection statutes. In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report stating that employees who reported illegal activities did not receive enough protection from retaliation by their employers. Based on data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, only 21% of the 1800 whistleblower cases reviewed by the agency in 2007 had "a favorable outcome" for the whistleblower. The GAO found that the key issues were lack of resources for investigating employees' claims and the legal complexity of whistleblower protection regulations.
 * There are certain limitations and exemptions to the legal protections for whistleblowers in the U.S. With regard to federal legislation, the broadest law is the Whistleblower Protection Act, however its protections only apply to federal employees. Both public and private employees may be protected under topic-specific federal laws such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act but such laws cover only a narrow, specific area of unlawful activity. Private sector employees reporting violations of federal laws that have no whistleblower protection provisions or those reporting violations of state laws are not protected by federal whistleblower protection statutes. In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report stating that employees who reported illegal activities did not receive enough protection from retaliation by their employers. Based on data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, only 21% of the 1800 whistleblower cases reviewed by the agency in 2007 had "a favorable outcome" for the whistleblower. The GAO found that the key issues were lack of resources for investigating employees' claims and the legal complexity of whistleblower protection regulations.


 * In the United States, union officials are exempted from whistleblower laws. There are currently no legal protections for employees of labor unions who report union corruption, and such employees can be dismissed from employment should they raise any allegations of financial impropriety. The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which legislates against union corruption, includes protections for whistleblowers, however the Supreme Court has ruled that these protections only apply to union members and not to employees of labor unions.

This page is now on my watchlist, so reply here if you have any feedback. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do not think that you would have a conflict of interest with the citation. I would say that the sentence "Private sector employees reporting violations of federal laws that have no whistleblower protection provisions or those reporting violations of state laws are not protected by federal whistleblower protection statutes" should be amended. I would include something that states "....reporting violations of federal laws are only protected if there are local laws enacted other than federal or state laws......" (the wording I propose needs CLEANED UP I admit, but something that will show that they "could" have protection although be it minor). You could also amend it to include ONLY federal protections but the way it is worded now could be a little confusing to some. I also do not object to adding the information into the article (as it is well sourced) but I will leave it alone for a little bit to give others a chance to voice their opinion (as Wikipedia works on consensus). --Morning277 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Morning277, your notes are really helpful and I see how the sentence you mention could be confusing. I've made an attempt at rewriting the sentence you highlighted. Does this sound ok?


 * Private sector employees are not protected by federal whistleblower protection statutes if they report either violations of federal laws with no whistleblower protection provisions or violations of state laws, although they may have some protection under local laws.


 * I've hidden the draft above and here it is again with the rewritten sentence included:


 * There are certain limitations and exemptions to the legal protections for whistleblowers in the U.S. With regard to federal legislation, the broadest law is the Whistleblower Protection Act, however its protections only apply to federal employees. Both public and private employees may be protected under topic-specific federal laws such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act but such laws cover only a narrow, specific area of unlawful activity. Private sector employees are not protected by federal whistleblower protection statutes if they report either violations of federal laws with no whistleblower protection provisions or violations of state laws, although they may have some protection under local laws. In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report stating that employees who reported illegal activities did not receive enough protection from retaliation by their employers. Based on data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, only 21% of the 1800 whistleblower cases reviewed by the agency in 2007 had "a favorable outcome" for the whistleblower. The GAO found that the key issues were lack of resources for investigating employees' claims and the legal complexity of whistleblower protection regulations.
 * There are certain limitations and exemptions to the legal protections for whistleblowers in the U.S. With regard to federal legislation, the broadest law is the Whistleblower Protection Act, however its protections only apply to federal employees. Both public and private employees may be protected under topic-specific federal laws such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act but such laws cover only a narrow, specific area of unlawful activity. Private sector employees are not protected by federal whistleblower protection statutes if they report either violations of federal laws with no whistleblower protection provisions or violations of state laws, although they may have some protection under local laws. In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report stating that employees who reported illegal activities did not receive enough protection from retaliation by their employers. Based on data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, only 21% of the 1800 whistleblower cases reviewed by the agency in 2007 had "a favorable outcome" for the whistleblower. The GAO found that the key issues were lack of resources for investigating employees' claims and the legal complexity of whistleblower protection regulations.


 * In the United States, union officials are exempted from whistleblower laws. There are currently no legal protections for employees of labor unions who report union corruption, and such employees can be dismissed from employment should they raise any allegations of financial impropriety. The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which legislates against union corruption, includes protections for whistleblowers, however the Supreme Court has ruled that these protections only apply to union members and not to employees of labor unions.


 * If that's clearer, is it ready to add into the article now? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It is generally a bad idea to provide specific legal advice in an encyclopedia, but I have no objection if you put it in a separate section. Kindly do not mix it with anything else in the article. Whistleblowers must investigate their own claim, and the whistleblower must not file a false criminal claim. You may wish to consider the following. Union officials are not immune from whistleblower laws. Union officials have control of the funds and a lawyer on retainer, so the union typically terminates membership for the whistleblower. That is not illegal, but enforcement depends upon where you live. Recommend a bit more research before posting any information about union shops. There is less protection in right to work states. The same thing is true for federal workers. Federal workers and most employees in right-to-work states must pursue any illegal employer actions in federal court, which virtually eliminates legal protection. This is most definitely not true in states like California, where the employer can be fined and sued for wrongful termination regardless of cause, and that includes providing information to police/DA regarding corrupt union officials. Most non-right-to-work states have a state labor board that has social workers and judges that can issue court orders to "make whole financial damage" caused by the employer (the union cannot actually fire the employee). Federal managers can be fired for wrongful termination, but the process must be pursued in federal court. Employees that are terminated in "right to work" states usually need to pursue the process in federal court. The problem is that, with the exception of retirement and disability, there are zero employment lawyers operating inside the US at the federal level (a.k.a.: none). The only labor lawyers at the federal level all work for unions. That is why there is no protection in right-to-work states. All lawyers that work employment law operate at the state level and not the federal level. You need a lawyer to file in most courts. Employees would normally complain to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which is the organization that would suspend the union charter, but the FLRA has been backlogged due to funding cuts about 10 years ago. The FLRA, DA, and FBI offer protection for confidential informants in situations like this. What you can do is go over the head of the local union president and notify the top level of the union using an anonymous tip. They can force an FLRA election to replace corrupt individuals. I know because I did that.Nanoatzin (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Nanoatzin, that's fascinating stuff and sounds like it would be a useful addition to the article if it can be sourced. Regarding the draft I wrote, I've decided to be bold and add the section into the article, since the two replies here have raised no objection. It'll be interesting to see what changes others make later. Thurmant (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing for course assignment
As part of a course assignment, I have to edit this page. I plan to keep a similar outline to how the page is already structured, but touch it up for the multiple issues reported. The article currently contains instructions, advice, or how-to content, as well as, external links that do not follow the proper guidelines. Along with editing the article for these two specific things, I plan on cleaning up the information in each section and checking for grammar. This page should be more informational than instructional, so after describing the definition of what whistleblower protection is, I plan to delve deep into the different Acts that the United States government created to help ensure this protection upon the working people of America. Next, I would describe how to report unsafe working conditions and the process how one would go about doing that. I would combine a few of the topics already on the page to cut down on headings and make it easier to read. Then, I would discuss the exemptions to the protections provided to us. When doing this, I will take into consideration the edits in this Talk page below. Lastly, I would include the references, adding to what is already there at the end, making sure there are no external links in the body of the Wikipage. My outline looks as follows:

•	Brief definition/description •	Talk about the different Acts created in our government (made into law), which protect the workers of America •	Describe how to report unsafe working conditions and the process how one would go about doing that: -	Labor dispute/unions -	Grievances -	Meetings •	Exemptions to protections •	References

If anyone has any comments, please let me know! Thanks, Amanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandalee18 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are some of the sources I found to help add to it:

Peer Review Suggestions
Citation Issues

I checked the first references for several links that came up with an error code; however, I found links online that will work: Citation #1 http://www.okbar.org/members/BarJournal/archive2005/Aprarchive05/obj7612fal.aspx

Citation #5. When you click on the highlighted blue title of the pdf it brings you to a page not found. This is the link to the pdf that I found online http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Secret%20Sources%20report.pdf The link above is also cited in citation #6 and does not work correctly.

Citation #13 https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesdropping-telephone-calls

Citation #19 http://www.tmcec.com/resources/more-resources/ticket_fixing/

Citation #20 http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=californialawreview

Citation #21 http://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/media/press-releases/gao-nations-whistleblower-laws-inadequately-enforced-needs-additional-resources

Citation #22 http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510527300-group-urges-osha-to-protect-union-whistleblowers

Copy Editing Issues and Other Suggestions Under “Civil Service Reform Act of 1978” change the word “purse” to “pursue.”

Under “False Claims Act” change the word “materiel” to “material.”

I believe that the first section titled Law could be removed and the short sentence that explains there is Public Law and Common Law could be added to the introduction of the article to start it off.

Under “Criminal Law” there is a link that says “Please clarify” I would recommend specifying that the “safety data sheet” is the data sheet of the product that contained the hazardous medical evaluation of an illness after being exposed to a hazardous substance the safety data sheet of the substance and verification of worker’s compensation is required.”

Under “Us Labor Law and Policy” is a contradictory sentence that needs clarification. It says that the manager cannot order people to do something if it’s unethical etc but they can do so until there is a dispute. Very confusing but I’m sure you are already aware of this issue.

Reading under the "Civil Service Reform Act of 1978" the first sentence is very heavily advising. Perhaps changing “must” to “may” might help. Or is the employee actually required to seek defense? That could be something to look into.

Under the "Whistleblower Protection Act" this statement seemed very opinionated to me “While not necessarily protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act, private employers should be prohibited from firing workers after the worker has disclosed criminal activity to organizations like OSHA, EPA, SEC, FBI, or other similar organizations (False Claims Act).” I would look into that statement and consider restructuring this sentence. This whole section could be revised to sound less instructional.

Another thing to consider would be to go through all the acts and laws and sort together all the laws that are targeted at what the managers can and cannot do when dealing with whistleblowers and the laws and acts that are aimed at what protects whistleblowers specifically. The laws seem to be thrown into the article with no organization and this could be a way to organize them. --AshleyFortierUML (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Peer to Peer UMASS Lowell James ONeil (nailsONeil) to Amandalee18
Peer To Peer- From James ONeil (NailsONeil) UML to Amanda (Amandalee18) Wikipedia Article “Whistleblower Protection in the United States” Hello Amandalee, this is James aka NailsONeil UMASS Lowelland I would like to do a Peetr Review on the work you have done so far on ‘WhistleBlower Protection In the United States’ from Wikipedia. I can see your lead sections using the subheader1 is in line with what the Wikipedia training has recommended so I find it very easy to navigate the article and find the different acts the government has created to protect working people. I was wondering if there would be a place in your article to add the internal work that an EHS department (Environment Health Safety) may provide for a company. Grievances and Exceptions usually start right at the source in many large companies today. Of course as I read your discourse some companies may use pernicious means to avoid responsibility. I think because of your work the article has become more balanced and your mission statement from the very beginning I read on your ‘TALK’ was to make the article more informational and less instructional. I think you have accomplished much of that. I see Heidi (our other UML peer)has pinpointed a few links that were suspect and I agree with that. Overall the strengths outweigh any weaknesses. We still have several weeks. As Peer to Peer I give you an A. NailsONeil (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Matthewstock
In adding a new subsection 3.9 The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Matthewstock included five references to zuckermanlaw.com, which is not a WP:RS. Rather, it is a self-promotional advertising site operated by Washington, DC-based law firm Zuckerman Law. This violates WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTPROMOTION. The addition by Matthewstock also included seven citations to sec.gov, which is of course a WP:RS, and which Matthewstock's references to zuckermanlaw.com merely duplicate, seemingly with no purpose other than advertising and self-promotion. However, when I asked him via edit summary, "Please remove all content citing zuckermanlaw.com, which is not WP:RS," Matthewstock did not do so. Instead, he engaged in WP:EDITWAR. I have repeatedly asked him via edit summary here and here, "Please open new section at Talk:Whistleblower protection in the United States and allow consensus to form." Since he has not done so, I am opening that section myself, and request other interested editors to discuss this matter. KalHolmann (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It may also be significant that there is an associate at Zuckerman Law named Matthew Stock, CPA. If this is the same person as User:Matthewstock, then he is in clear and repeated violation of WP:COI. KalHolmann (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Permanent disability
In the section entitled "Freedom of Information Act of 1966", the following is stated: "Injury due to hazardous chemical exposure, radiation, and other hazards permanently disable 100,000 federal workers each year."

This figure is not referenced and is implausible, considering the number of federal workers. [ says under 3 million civilians.] Perhaps someone can track down the source of the "100,000" figure, or determine the correct value. Or eliminate the sentence entirely, as it isn't germane to the topic of disclosure of hazards.

P.S. The prior sentence is "As an example, the use of hazardous chemicals must be disclosed to employees, such as pesticides." A little inartful, as the phrase "such as pesticides" appears to relate to the adjacent noun "employees". It would be clearer to re-arrange: "As an example, the use of hazardous chemicals (such as pesticides) must be disclosed to employees."

LijeBailey (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amandalee18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Uhenddo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)