< …whistleblowers tend to bear the scars of their encounters for life. They may have to find new jobs, retire, change names or emigrate to other countries to avoid local opprobrium. >

Yes; whistleblowers and those who lodge formal grievances or just simply question their superiors’ approach to dealing with certain issues.

All of this is fraught with difficulty.

The temptation, or coercion, to just toe the line, is very strong indeed, which means that many people, perhaps most people, end up doing things that are not entirely proper in order to just roll with the flow and stay in the good books with all those with whom they work.

Then if things get more out of line with proper procedure, they can’t blow the whistle, because they have been a party to dodgy practices.

And so it goes.

Ultimately a lot of people that do get hauled up for wrongdoings have had little real choice about it. They’ve just got sucked into it.

As rightly said, whistleblowing is virtuous. But only in the right circumstances.
Kathy Jackson blew the whistle, and destroyed the lives of some people, not for virtuous reasons, but to cover her own actions.
Michael Williamson is now serving time, Craig Thompson has had his political career destroyed, and for what?
Jackson's indiscretions are/were manifestly more serious than the aforementioned. She has defrauded the HSU of millions.
Evidence from the TURC (Trades Union Royal Commission) has shown this to be true.
Virtuous whistleblowing is in the form of Edward Snowden, who destroyed his own career/life to bring truth to the world.
Kathy Jackson is a Clown Princess who was snared in her own trap...

Find it hard to disagree with Petro chemical.
Albeit, I would say the jury is still out, with regard to Ms Jackson's own alleged criminal offences.
I would say and as ICAC revelations are exposed, this could be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and possibly to shift the focus from herself?
And the worst part is, this hypocritical case really harms fair dinkum civic minded whistle-blowers and genuine justice for the many!
Rhrosty.

It would appear so far that it's a case of...this time it's a corrupt person ratting out their co-offenders rather than an apparent innocent responding in righteousness.
This is obviously at the heart of this occasion. It would be easier to feel some respect if she'd first returned ALL the money she had personally scammed, wouldn't it? IF she did and it's not a case of someone else "using her name in vain"?. That happens every day in all sorts of situations.
Otherwise, I agree with the article in general, there's always been a price to pay for acting in defense of an ideal by acting outside our clannish instincts.
No amount of education or "mind-sculpting" will ever change that, it's genetic and virtually immutable.

But look at Edward Snowden's whistle-blowing on a grand scale. The bloke is in gravy. Bugger morality or ethics.

Here he was, high salary and the athletic pleasures of a pole-dancer in Hawaii.

He steals many thousands of TS documents.

He shifts to Hong Kong in a 5 star Hotel where he scores exclusive multi-million$$ contracts with the Guardian and the New York Times.

Now that he dumped the pole-dancer he takes up with his Ummm Wikileaks "legal representative"

And to Russia with Love.

Bugger morality or ethics. Snowden has it made in Putin's paradise.

Pete

Strange way to look at it Planta's, all things being considered.
He exposed a lot of misbehaviour, and in the process snatching a bucketful of random documents on a fishing exercise, he knew his access was shot as soon as he went public.
Thereafter he ended up in Russia of all places.
I seriously doubt he's enjoying that, Russia isn't exactly a wonderful place after all. It's also riddled with corruption, I fully expect he's paying through the nose for his existence there, his purported wealth is public knowledge and the sharks will be feeding.
He sacrificed his entire life, livelihood and future for his idealism, and he didn't make much of a trade in my opinion, he's trapped there at an "interesting" time, isn't he?

Sure G'dayBruce

Snowden's rich, got sweet gals and lovin it.

In 2013-2014 "Snowden had received tens of thousands of dollars in cash awards and appearance fees from privacy organizations and other groups, fielded inquiries about book and movie projects, "Any moment that he decides that he wants to be a wealthy person," said Snowden's attorney Ben Wizner, "that route is available to him,"

"I don't live in absolute secrecy," he says. "I live a pretty open life—but at the same time I don't want to be a celebrity." He does not work for a Russian organization, yet is financially secure thanks to substantial savings from his years as a well-paid contractor and more recently numerous awards and speaking fees from around the world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_snowden#2014

So Snowden's a bloke enriched from the proceeds of crime and having a great old time.

Oh the ethics. Oh the tragedy :-)

Cheers

Pete

Are you suggesting he was unethical to expose Government wrong-doing?

As for "tragedy", please explain, I can't see one.

On Snowden: So what if he has access to a massive cash windfall, he ain't gonna be able to spend it. If he buys a plane, its going to mysteriously crash with no survivors, or sailing in the Caribbeans? Whoops, didn't know those 'pirates' were real. If America can get away with it, they will render and ship him to a black site.

On this case: is it really whistleblowing if you rat out your fellow crooks?

‘morning Petro,

I guess it’s rewarding to have a rant about things without the burdensome impact of facts.

Just in case you missed it. As announced on February 14, 2014, Detective Gary Jenkins confirmed that Victoria’s fraud squad had conducted a thorough investigation into allegations raised by the HSU’s national office against Kathy Jackson. The Police confirmed that “There were no criminal offences detected”.

So far three HSU officials have been investigated by the police, Williamson and Thompson were found guilty and sentenced.

The TURC on the other hand is not the slightest bit interested in the individuals appearing before it at this stage. Their only interest is governance and corruption. Was there corruption, how many examples are there, how was this set up, where was the governance to prevent it and if there were rules of governance, how were they circumnavigated?

When you assert that << Jackson's indiscretions are/were manifestly more serious than >> those of Williamson and Thomson, I guess you know better than the police fraud squad, Fair Work Australia Commission, the courts and the judiciary?

As for the TURC proving Kathy Jacksons guilt, it is yet to conclude the hearings let alone publish any findings. I think you are confused by the entirely separate processes of police fraud squad investigations and the TURC.

It seems inevitable that that the TURC Commissioner will at some stage refer individuals to the DPP based on the evidence it has, Kathy Jackson may well be one of those however, unless new evidence comes to light, any action remain a civil case brought by the HSU.

Are you not the slightest bit curious that the HSU is not pursuing Williamson and Thompson for the $20m + they have been found guilty of stealing, yet the HSU is pursuing Kathy Jackson for the money she has not been found guilty of stealing?

Do you prefer persecution of the whistle blowers rather than the convicted criminals?

Just asking

And you worship Saint Edward Snowden, the successful crim, how?