Hacker News Reader

Comment by briandear | Hacker News Reader

California law DOES protect whistleblowers. The law is extremely clear. Those laws even provide for damages due to retailiation.

View on HN

Even in that situation, if you’re a paycheck-to-paycheck worker, how much boat-rocking can you endure? On some theoretical future date according to the law you can get back at your employer, great: in the meantime, maybe you got fired and now you can’t feed yourself?

We’ve seen plenty of companies that shrug off large fines and such. Whatever the rules, it has to reach the point of being seriously unprofitable to disobey (i.e. investors knocking to demand compliance).

Not to mention the further stigmatization that results from being a whistleblower- having your name in published sources associated with calling out an employer may impact how quickly you can find a new job. Future employers also like seeing $LARGE_CORP experience on a resume, where I've seen colleagues stay at a job they didn't like only for the prestige attached to this line item.

For a worker without this safety net there really isn't reason for them to violate an NDA and have to rely on whistleblower protections for future remidial damages if there isn't a guarantee that their current living situation would be able to be maintained. We saw last week how Apple fired leakers on the spot and have their name blacklisted towards future tech employers as such.

Not to mention the emotional toll. Having an entire HR department viciously attacking you when you’ve already been wrongned, while backing the party who wronged you, can be extremely scary and depleting.

So what we need is name suppression for whistleblowers.

> if you’re a paycheck-to-paycheck worker, how much boat-rocking can you endure?

As someone who grew up in a paycheck-to-paycheck household, you generally can't endure too much boat rocking. The ability to whistleblow takes a huge hit to your pocketbooks. If you don't have a pocketbook to begin with, it can be an extreme hardship.

Sure, except they only protect you from retaliation by your current employer. It does nothing to help you retain new employment once your reputation precludes you from opportunities at companies with draconian H.R. policies aimed at mitigating risk. Maybe existing or forthcoming case law can tell us more about how this plays out in reality.

Maybe we need a nonprofit job placement service for whistleblowers.

So why are people still afraid to talk, then? It's obvious that either the law isn't as crystal clear, the law does not prevent companies from writing FUD into employment contracts or that people are not educated well enough about their rights. Or: that they have economic pressure (e.g. no 3 months of savings, like way too many people have!) to stay in their job and thus cannot afford to lose it by ratting out illegal or immoral practices.

Now, if every company in the world had the legal requirement to add a paragraph like "in the event that you witness illegal behavior at the company, the law explicitly allows you to report such behavior to media, unions, NGOs and public offices, and we are required to pay you for the duration of the investigation", that would be a different story. Everyone who reads his/her contract would know it.

Tesla has a history of blaming the owners of their cars for accidents with plenty of people defending Tesla's actions. I would imagine that a paycheck-to-paycheck worker has to know that the response to them will be similar with the added bonus of a signed NDA.

Sure. As long as you can prove that you experienced retaliation due to your whistleblowing and not because you were late to work 2 times this year, and can afford to litigate it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com