Well, based on my 5 years in an Army Inspector General job, which included investigating whistle blower complaints, here's what I recall. There are 3 things that must be observable/provable.
1. The person made a protected disclosure--meaning an allegation (accusation without proof) of misconduct/illegal action.
2. Leadership/management had knowledge of the allegation/disclosure or reasonably believed that the person had made the disclosure.
3. That reprisal (adverse action(s)) against/toward the person making the allegation/disclosure were taken or threatened, or a positive action withheld.
I don't know all that is involved in the current flap in which the term "whistle blower" is being thrown around, but if the 3 criteria above aren't substantiated/factually confirmed it can't be a case of whistle blower reprisal in my experience.
I'd be willing to bet that the dim-o-craps sucking up to Pee-lousie can't define it either.
1. The person made a protected disclosure--meaning an allegation (accusation without proof) of misconduct/illegal action.
2. Leadership/management had knowledge of the allegation/disclosure or reasonably believed that the person had made the disclosure.
3. That reprisal (adverse action(s)) against/toward the person making the allegation/disclosure were taken or threatened, or a positive action withheld.
I don't know all that is involved in the current flap in which the term "whistle blower" is being thrown around, but if the 3 criteria above aren't substantiated/factually confirmed it can't be a case of whistle blower reprisal in my experience.
I'd be willing to bet that the dim-o-craps sucking up to Pee-lousie can't define it either.
Comment