finally toward the end the union is mentioned, because that's what a union is there for, right?
(Except if the whistleblower happens to be a non union member)

But if management and the employee's fellow workers ostracize the whistleblower, this is where the union really shows its mettle, and separates the men from the boys and the women from the girls.

Personally, when I was a member of the CPSU, I always found them to be the most safety-conscious and courageous of any organisation at the workplace. And they always supported me when I had problems.

Well put Brian. Often it is not the realm of conspiracy theories but simple incompetence, cultural 'inertia' and a sense of the unspoken code that you described so well. I can also recognise the anger element and it is always wise to make decisions once the anger has passsed, although anger can be a great motivator to do something and often enables courage.

Often ones peers share the issues, in my case some contributed to the internal report to the Executive but did not put their name to it for fear of reprisal and job security.

With the wisdom of hindsight, the best route is the media. If you value your wellbeing, do it anonymously if you can if there is some doubt over the security of your disclosure. I did not do this, and regret it although there were many conflicting loyalties and a belief in the program no matter how mismanaged.

Life is short so the best thing after an experience like this is to get on with it and learn as you go. That is not to diminish the betrayal felt by whistleblowers but that one can spend to much time mourning (maybe a necessary process) and dwelling rather than living.

Good article Brian, My wife is currently going through exactly that process and I couldn't have put her experience more succinctly. It appears the system is designed entirely protect those higher up the tree. All these codes of ethics are worth nothing more than the paper they are written on. Having worked in the public sector for some 15 years I have never seen justice done to any whistle blower.

Thankyou Brian. I am very pleased to see this article. It just resonates so strongly with my situation over the last few years.

The only difference is that I’m not a whistle-blower; I have tried to improve things properly and gently by just communicating with my peers and superiors. But I’ve run up against just the same sort of thing.

You write:

< It is that the disclosing employee has dishonoured the “code” - which is that none of us should bite the hand that feeds all of us. >

Yes. There is the official code of conduct and there is the unwritten code. In my experience, the latter applies and the former is just words on paper, that no one, except dumb little me, gives the slightest hoot about.

< Each of my “clients” described their experience following a disclosure as the worst of their lives. >

Yep. And each positive step that you try to make, no how properly and gently, just makes it worse.

< As the matter stretches from weeks to months, and then to years, my people exhibited many physical signs of distress, including skin rashes, irritable bowel syndrome, insomnia … >

Oh yes.

If you keep trying, you just get seen as an agitant. Your message doesn’t mean a thing. It gets to the point that you either remain totally silent or you get dumped on further, because there is absolutely no tolerance for you to say or do anything about the things that bother you.

Your goodwill and enthusiasm just gets crushed.

And so it goes.

I say all power (and protection) to the whistleblower who reveals significant malfeasance, dishonesty or gross incompetence. But I fear that under Qld legislation, the protected disclosure pathway can be the first refuge of the scoundrel. Rather than raising a minor HR grievance or concern with local managers in the conventional way, a malicious employee can frame almost any situation as misconduct and make an anonymous protected disclosure to their agency ethics unit. Rather than risk an accusation of failing to report misconduct, these reports are routinely passed on to the CMC and then the party starts. The so-called whistleblower can sit back, their identity protected, and enjoy the spectacle of their managers, supervisors and colleagues being formally investigated under the CMC Act, or called to give evidence as witnesses. Even if a misconduct allegation is not upheld, managers and supervisors are likely to be highly wary in their future interactions with the whistleblower who might then interpret their naturally cautious behaviour as ostracization and complain again. In these circumstances it is not only the whistleblower who might exhibit the physical signs of stress. Agencies have long-established in house procedures for dealing with employee grievances; they should use them in preference to managing every gripe, whine and conspiracy theory under the shield of protected disclosure.

hotmacca
What you have described is a workplace or HR issue not a whistleblowing scenario which requires there to be a public interest or a public right to know eg. fraud, misrepresentation, corruption, misuse of public funding etc.

The situation outlined in the article demonstrates that it is usually the complainant that is discouraged or tainted by the complaint than any possible 'target'. In a workplace complaint, the onus is still on senior management to investigate and establish the facts of the complaint so that a fair outcome can be achieved.

The risk of a malicious complaint is small despite the rhetoric about whistleblowers. The only way to protect a WB is through protected disclosure - there is no better way - even that is fraught with risks given the tendency for public servants to whitewash and/or fudge figures to suit as is my experience.

In my own case I don't know that the report did much good other than to help the department find better ways to hide the 'evidence' and to get rid of the mistruths oultined on their website in relation to this particular program. But the culture of spin and mismangement largely remained unchanged.

That is why the media is the best option. Internal concealed disclosures do not necessarily mean a situation will be attended to appropriately. Public exposure provides the greater chance of real accountability.