Read the case study: \"The Dark Side of Whistleblowing\" (Forbes, 3/14/05; Vol. 175, Issue 5, pg. 90-98). Available online via Google. Click on Google and type in \"The Dark Side of Whistle Blowing\". http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0314/090.html From the individual's perspective, what are the pros and cons to being a whistleblower? Discuss the \"ethical behavior\" of Douglas Durand and Federal Government. Do you think each was justified in their action? Argue from a position you have taken. What recommendations would you make to TAP Pharmaceutical Products to help prevent such a suit again? Under what circumstances would you become a whistleblower? From the individual's perspective, what are the pros and cons of being a whistleblower? Pros Whistleblowers represent the government in pursue of fraud cases. It deserves courage and willingness for one to take such a position and act against fraudulent activities related to government contracts. Such cases lead to gratification and recognition of the whistleblower. They are also recognized by the society for the good deed if the cases are proven true. For instance, the case study talks of the whistleblowers being given congresses and showing on television. Whistleblowers are also entitled to a percentage share of the recoveries made hence earning a living. The percentage encourages people from the different organization who have an undoubtable knowledge of fraudulent activities towards the government to come out and share them for investigations. This is also backed up by the qui tam law. Cons Light hearted people can find it hard beginning such cases even if they have the knowledge of a fraudulent activity. There is stress and anxiety associated with reporting fraud. The whistleblowers identity is revealed after the government is done with investigations. This might lead to someone being insecure or feeling insecure. Discuss the \"ethical behavior\" of Douglas Durand and Federal Government. Just like the whistleblowers themselves, the feds have a money motive. From the case study, we find out that the feds earn $13 dollars for a single dollar spent while prosecuting a case. On the other hand, the whistleblower earns a thirty percent of the amount recouped by the government. This makes them common. Do you think each was justified in their action? Argue from a position you have taken. Yes. When Durand reported the fraud case it was the responsibility of the federal government to investigate the case. It is justifiable for the federals to earn as they invest in the investigation process. Nevertheless, there is no offense when Durand files the fraud case against TAP pharmaceuticals, he was in kind of surety that something wrong was going on which was true. What recommendations would you make to TAP Pharmaceutical Products to help prevent such a suit again? TAP executives should countercheck the billing process to avoid over billing. It is also necessary to demand evidences for supplies before billing them. Under what circumstances would you become a whistleblower? For instance, when am retired from work I would consider being a whistleblower to earn a living at that time am retired. If there are many corruption and illegal activities going on in organizations and I have the knowledge, and enough proof, one can consider revealing the wrong doings in an organization. Of course, the 30% share of the recouped amount is for motivation. Whistleblowers, however, should not give false accusations with the money motive. Goo whistleblowers should have motives such as correcting the society and not selfish motives of making money. You can kindly reach me through fel.bright7at gmail dot com. We can work together better. Thank you and nice time. From the individual's perspective, what are the pros and cons of being a whistleblower? Pros Whistleblowers represent the government in pursue of fraud cases. It deserves courage and willingness for one to take such a position and act against fraudulent activities related to government contracts. Such cases lead to gratification and recognition of the whistleblower. They are also recognized by the society for the good deed if the cases are proven true. For instance, the case study talks of the whistleblowers being given congresses and showing on television. Whistleblowers are also entitled to a percentage share of the recoveries made hence earning a living. The percentage encourages people from the different organization who have an undoubtable knowledge of fraudulent activities towards the government to come out and share them for investigations. This is also backed up by the qui tam law. Cons Light hearted people can find it hard beginning such cases even if they have the knowledge of a fraudulent activity. There is stress and anxiety associated with reporting fraud. The whistleblowers identity is revealed after the government is done with investigations. This might lead to someone being insecure or feeling insecure. Discuss the \"ethical behavior\" of Douglas Durand and Federal Government. Just like the whistleblowers themselves, the feds have a money motive. From the case study, we find out that the feds earn $13 dollars for a single dollar spent while prosecuting a case. On the other hand, the whistleblower earns a thirty percent of the amount recouped by the government. This makes them common. Do you think each was justified in their action? Argue from a position you have taken. Yes. When Durand reported the fraud case it was the responsibility of the federal government to investigate the case. It is justifiable for the federals to earn as they invest in the investigation process. Nevertheless, there is no offense when Durand files the fraud case against TAP pharmaceuticals, he was in kind of surety that something wrong was going on which was true. What recommendations would you make to TAP Pharmaceutical Products to help prevent such a suit again? TAP executives should countercheck the billing process to avoid over billing. It is also necessary to demand evidences for supplies before billing them. Under what circumstances would you become a whistleblower? For instance, when am retired from work I would consider being a whistleblower to earn a living at that time am retired. If there are many corruption and illegal activities going on in organizations and I have the knowledge, and enough proof, one can consider revealing the wrong doings in an organization. Of course, the 30% share of the recouped amount is for motivation. Whistleblowers, however, should not give false accusations with the money motive. Goo whistleblowers should have motives such as correcting the society and not selfish motives of making money. You can kindly reach me through fel.bright7at gmail dot com. We can work together better. Thank you and nice time