Should private businesses be allowed to fire whistleblowers or otherwise retaliate against someone because they are a whistleblower?
If there's shit worth whistleblowing about, then I don't see the problem.
It depends on what they are whistleblowing on. No if they are reporting criminal activity, or violation of public safety regulations. Yes for just about any other reason. Reporting violations of company policy, for example, might not be protected.
To clarify, I was meaning whistleblowers relating to criminal activity and labor codes
It still isn't that simple. It depends on whether the criminal activity or safety violation is covered by one of the laws protecting whistleblowers. Here's a list with time limits to file:
There are likely to be state laws that expand on the federal programs making it even more so not a one size fits all question.
I'm wasn't attempting to make it seem like a one size fits all. I was attempting clarify in which way the question was meant
I understand. I was just trying to clarify why my answer is conditional. Because some whistleblowing is protected, and some isn't.
They shouldn't be prohibited from doing so, except by said business's owner(s).
Shouldn't whistleblowers (of criminal and labor code violations) be protected so they can come forward without fearing for their jobs?
No. You shouldn't be forced to keep giving them a job. Think of how poor a relationship that would fe going forward.
I never said the relationship would be good, but virtually no one would whistleblow if they knew they'd almost certainly be fired or otherwise face retaliation for doing so
They'd have to weigh the potential outcomes and make a decision, just like anyone else when making any other decision.
Should a government force those in abusive relationships to stay married?
This would just a whole lot of negative with no positives, not to mention that no one else has a right to force them to stay together.
Liberty, even you of all people know an abusive marriage and a employee employee relationship are not the same.
Of course not, but it's the same issue of a third party forcing two people stay in a relationship (of any kin) against their will.
And you're right that people have to weigh consequences, they still do. But there is a reason protections were put in in the first place. Virtually NO ONE would whistleblow if they knew they'd be fired. Unless you want legal violations galore by
Practically every business because without whistleblower protections they know they can easily get away with it, you need whistleblower protections
Why wouldn't they? If something was going on that was bad enough to encourage espionage, they'd most likely be quitting anyway. I sure wouldn't want to work for someone that was engaged in practices with which I disagreed so vehemently.
The problem here is that you're letting the practicality of one side override the rights of both sides.
The government could also do away with civil rights entirely and have cops search everyone's homes on a daily basis. That would make it easier..
Liberty, maybe you wouldn't. The vast majority of people? If it's a choice between being able to provide for them or their families by not reporting it vs almost certainly being fired for reporting it, most won't. Putting in protections to prevent
...to catch criminals, after all. But that would be such an obvious and blatant violation of people's property rights.
The employee from being fired or retaliated against is the only realistic way to ensure people actually whistleblow when it's needed
Depends on the contract they sign I guess
I'd be interested in knowing (and probably default to) the precedents that have dealt with this and the outcome assuming there have been court cases about this.
Yep! It all depends on the contract.