If nobody will hire a whistleblower, that leads me to believe everyone has skeletons to hide.
1. The whistleblower are always right and the company is always wrong. I've seen it go both ways. On an engineering project, a junior engineer misinterprets something, and then starts sending upset, angry emails with odd allegation. If there is any litigation about anything later, if those emails come up in discovery, you've got a multimillion dollar problem.
2. The company won't retaliate otherwise. In whistleblowing instances I've seen, the company engages in a smear campaign on the engineer. Having a billion dollar corporation hire a PI to investigate you, and then spread rumours about you to the media can kill a career. Is Julian Assange a sexual predator? Or was he set up? No one knows.
I for one, am willing to go with this. But I will add that managers (in lots of industries) take exceptional delight in messing with their employees. I'm not sure why, other than a lust for arbitrary power, but it's there. Some aerospace companies are legendary for making engineers work over holidays, and/or on Saturdays, for example. I worked in a smaller company where the owner felt he had a right to dictate how his employees should vote. In 1995.
Control issues may be more prevalent than skeletons.
Since we have a secret ballot (which is a good thing) in the US, how on earth could anyone "dictate" who you vote for?
You realize that another synonym of "secret ballot" is "Australian Ballot"? US voting was apparently mostly public on to the mid 1800s. Now that we're all Originalists, I hope we're going to re-think this whole Foreign Imposition of secrecy on The Framer's desire to have accountable voting.
Plenty of cases of "ballot parties" in unions, military, churches, job sites, etc.
All voting booths I've seen had a curtain for privacy.
A ballot records votes. Otherwise it's not a ballot.
Are you saying we live in a world without coercion? That various organizations haven't hosted ballot parties?
In German language, there actually exists no native word for "whistleblower" (one uses the English word). The German word is "Denunziant" (denunciator - I don't know whether the English word has the same negative connotation as the German one).
With the experience with the state security service (Stasi) of the GDR, people really well-understand why they don't want a denunciator in their company even if the respective person does not plan to denounce, since if there exists a potential denunciator at the workplace, everybody has to live in potential fear.
That statement has a "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" kind of vibe to me.
1. "Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right?"
Depending on the circumstances, maybe I respect their integrity and character for risking their livelihood and more to expose wrongdoing?
2. "It's just that we don't care because corporate citizens do not get the same rights as actual human citizens."
They shouldn't get the same rights. They only exist to be liability shields. Unlike the people they are composed of, nothing about them deserves empathy or fundamental rights---we grant them certain rights as a matter of public policy, not principle, because it makes our economic system work, and if that were ever to change, their rights should be changed or abolished accordingly.
For example, consider your taxes. Tax laws are always open to interpretation. You might believe you are doing everything correctly on your taxes, that the way you read the rules was correct. But would you still be undergoing a lot of stress if the IRS decided to do a compliance audit on you?
Or, you know, they could have just been privy to information that the company they work for was doing something shady.
> Why would you knowingly give them access even if you think you're doing everything right?
This is because you have the mindset that whistleblowers are little snitches just waiting for the opportunity to tattle.
If a company is breaking laws, they should be punished. Right?
What about that professor who pointed out that on average, most people commit 3 felonies a day? It's all a matter of what the authorities decide to prosecute.
Did you come to a full and complete stop the last time you encountered a stop sign?
Exposing ongoing crimes in an organization is "all downside and no upside" for the organization?
The laws that both support and constrain companies -- and also individuals -- really are supposed to be there for the public good.
I think you can make a good argument that limited liability corporations should serve the public good in return for the stockholders being shielded from financial and criminal liability. Stands to reason then that government has a right to demand something in return.
On the contrary, whistleblowers go unemployed.
Would you have second thoughts about marrying someone who went through an ugly divorce? Sure, the person says the ex-spouse was the bad one. Do you accept that unquestioningly?