|
Radsafe Folks -- I'd like to thank everybody who sent their good wishes in response to my whistleblower posting. The encouragement and comfort really boosted my morale. I received only one negative response, from someone I'll call X. I was prepared for negative responses accusing me of whining, disloyalty, misperception of the reality of rad work, etc. But I was floored by X's statement. I would like to share it with all of you and get your response. Here is what X said: I have not read your entire message, but what I have read leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I feel that your manner of discussion is unprofessional and the forum you have chosen for your complaint is inappropriate. You are not addressing only rad protection professionals, but folks of many other persuasions. You may or may not have a valid complaint, but since you are in the middle of a legal action, you might better rely on your attorney to guide you through the legal process. It appears your attorney advised you to air your legal complaints on radsafe, but as an attorney and CHP, I think that was poor advise. The AAHP has some vague standards on professional conduct, but just as attorneys are directed to seek opinions of a committee on legal ethics and professional responsibility prior to engaging in unusual activity, I think you ought to seek the advise of the AAHP Professional Standards and Ethics Committee before proceeding further. [The spelling is X's.]I agree that the AAHP should be regarded as a resource when one has ethical questions. But I don't agree that I should have asked their advice before telling my story on RadSafe, especially when, as I said in my statement, all that I said had previously been communicated in my statement to DOE and/or had been stated in testimony in a retaliation hearing. Note that my statement was sent by DOE to my former employer within ten days of my giving it to DOE and that the hearing, in principle, was open to the public and its transcript is a public record. So why would it be inappropriate for me to reiterate these things on RadSafe or indeed in any sort of public forum? I think that many people in safety have a sort of visceral response when they see whistleblowers -- they want to believe that the whistleblowers are acting from base motives, so that they don’t have to believe that those in charge are really breaking the law or endangering workers. They don't want to believe that things are as bad as all that. But anybody who dismisses all whistleblowers out of hand as loonies or crackpots, as congenital misanthropes, or as merely "disgruntled workers" are missing the boat. There are surely whistleblowers who cry wolf just to get money or to save their jobs or to get back at people who disciplined them. But I think that those people are in the minority and I assert that I am not among them. I ask that each and every one of my peers put aside his doubts and prejudices and entertain for five minutes the thought that I am telling the truth; I ask that during those five minutes, he consider the implications of the violations I allege and further, the implications of what it means if the employer stifles a whistleblower and the regulator allows the whistleblower to be stifled. Not a pretty picture. You can see a spectrum of cases by visiting the DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals Web site case listing, at http://www.oha.doe.gov/whistlec.htm. You can see the judge's decision in my case (about three-fourths of the way down) -- you can see for yourself how he doesn't even mention my doctored performance rating, how superficial his reasoning is for accepting the contractor's contention that I was laid off for financial reasons, etc. You will have to visit other sites -- which tend to be anti-nuclear -- to find any briefs filed by the plaintiffs (mine is not among them). I think you would find some of these briefs to be an eye-opener as to what practices DOE has allowed contractors to get away with. I hope they would motivate you to write DOE or your congressman and ask them to take an interest in my case and others. |