whistleblowers

By Union Jake and Colin Smalley - Valley Labor Report, May 23, 2024

By Steve Zeltser, Jami Ray Wallace, and Chris Albright - Labor Video Project, April 12, 2024

By staff - Labor Network for Sustainability, October 31, 2023

A survey commissioned by the British charity Protect has found that concerns about being fired or victimized at work are preventing people from calling out their employers on the climate crisis and the wider environment.

Fear of reprisals and uncertainty about how to provide proof were the main barriers to reporting on poor and misleading behavior about the environment. Employees were also skeptical that their concerns would be properly dealt with. Three quarters of those who contacted the Protect hotline about an environmental issue at work said they faced negative treatment as a result. Caitlín Comins, a legal officer at Protect, said

Workers are the eyes and ears of an organization and are best placed to spot when things go wrong. With the right information, they can raise concerns and damage can be prevented, minimizing the impact on the environment. By exposing environmental wrongdoing, they can also help ensure organizations are accountable for their climate impact and there is appropriate intervention where required.

LNS would like to be made aware of any similar hotline, study, or toolkit in the US.

By staff - Protect, October 2023

What is the Toolkit?

Protect’s Environmental Whistleblowing Toolkit is a practical and legal guide to raising environmental concerns. Drafted with help from trade unions, lawyers, Non-Governmental Organisations and journalists, it offers guidance on whistleblowing in the workplace to help you raise concerns safely and with maximum impact.

The Toolkit includes information on what may constitute an environmental concern, practical guidance on how and where to raise environmental concerns and information on what legal rights you may have when raising environmental concerns.

Why speak up on environmental concerns?

Climate change has already caused irreversible damage to our planet and we hear daily about the risks of pollution to our rivers and waterways, greenwashing and loss of biodiversity. If we are to prevent further environmental damage, we need to use every tool in the box. Speaking up – or whistleblowing – is one of these tools.

By providing information and exposing wrongdoing, whistleblowers can help ensure that organisations are accountable for their climate impact and action is taken to prevent or mitigate environmental harm.

How can you use the Toolkit?

The Toolkit is designed to be a guide if you are thinking about blowing the whistle. It covers all topics and issues that you may need to think about when raising or escalating an environmental concern. The Toolkit is interactive and allows you to review the content that is most relevant to your situation. Whistleblowing can be risky and we would recommend that you seek advice from Protect’s free and confidential Advice Line before raising concerns.

Download a copy of this publication here (link).

By Matt Weaver, Ashley M. Gjøvik, Stella Miranda, Dr. Ray Tomkins, Steve Zeltser, et. al. - Labor Video Project, August 2, 2023

By By Helen Jenkins, Tim Whitehouse, Kyla Bennett, Paula Dinerstein, and Monica Mercola - Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, July 24, 2023

By Brendan J. Lyons - Albany Times-Union, February 21, 2023

The university's announcement came nine months after Dr. David Carpenter was directed not to visit any campuses and to perform his duties from home.

ALBANY — The University at Albany late Tuesday said that Dr. David O. Carpenter, the longtime director of the school's Institute for Health and the Environment, will not face discipline and "is no longer on an alternate assignment and may now teach and conduct research on campus."

The university's announcement came as Carpenter received increasing support from environmental advocates to be reinstated after he was directed nine months ago not to visit any campuses and to perform his duties from home as the school investigated his extensive work testifying as an expert witness in toxic pollution cases.

"UAlbany’s investigation regarding Dr. Carpenter has concluded, and no discipline will be imposed based on such investigation," a university spokesman said in a statement. "As is standard, UAlbany and Dr. Carpenter also entered into a Conflict Management Plan to ensure future activities are carried out in compliance with all applicable laws and policies. UAlbany reiterates in the strongest possible terms our full commitment to unfettered academic freedom."

Carpenter became the subject of a disciplinary investigation last year after a Freedom of Information Law request was filed by an attorney with Shook Hardy & Bacon, a Missouri law firm that represents Monsanto Company in toxic pollution cases it has faced across the nation.

Carpenter, who said he donates the money he receives from his expert testimony to Ph.D. students and the university's research program, has testified against Monsanto in numerous "toxic tort" cases — in which plaintiffs allege injuries from toxic substances — that have yielded multi-million-dollar verdicts against the company.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Carpenter said he is "very happy that the university has concluded its investigation and announced that my work as an expert witness did not merit discipline."

Carpenter will be able to resume his outside work testifying as an expert witness in toxic pollution cases but will also sign a "conflict management plan to ensure future activities are carried out in compliance with all applicable laws and policies," the unversity said.

By staff - Duluth News Tribune, March 10, 2022

DULUTH — The union representing many midwest employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to take up a PolyMet case challenging the proposed copper-nickel mine's water permit.

The American Federation of Government Employees Local 704 and other groups filed briefs urging the court to reconsider a January decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirming a 2020 decision by a State District Court judge who said the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency broke no laws or procedures by asking the EPA to keep comments on the permit private. It acknowledged such a move was made to prevent comments from reaching the public and leading to "bad press."

In 2019, AFGE Local 704 said it learned from a whistleblower that comments by the EPA Region 5 office in Chicago on a draft of PolyMet's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, were left out of the public record.

“Simply put, when a government agency acts in secret — or deliberately obscures its motives or reasoning — it becomes difficult to tell whether the agency’s actions were lawful or fair," the union wrote in its brief.

By staff - Union of Concerned Scientists, February 17, 2022

What happened: Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) directed agency staff to alter certain chemical safety studies in a way that downplayed the chemical’s health risks. EPA officials have pressured staff to alter hazard information, undermine research, and remove scientific information on potentially toxic chemicals.

Why it matters: By interfering with chemical safety studies, EPA officials undermined one of the major ways by which the federal government protects people from exposure to toxic chemicals. Not only does this action violate the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but it also endangers the health and safety of communities across the US, especially underserved communities.

Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are pressuring agency employees to tamper with the risk assessments of dozens of hazardous chemicals by excluding evidence of adverse health impacts. Reports of deleted language and major revisions in chemical risk assessments against the consent of agency scientists in response to higher management violates the rules and regulations as outlined by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 which states the EPA is required to uphold the “reporting, record-keeping, and testing requirements and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures.”

Four EPA scientists who worked at the agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention stated that they had experienced numerous incidents in which management and staff pressured them or their colleagues to alter risk assessments in a way that fell out of line with the best available scientific evidence. In a complaint submitted to the EPA inspector on behalf of the four scientists, these unauthorized interferences include deleted language identifying potential adverse effects of toxic chemicals, major revisions that alter the conclusions of a toxic chemical’s toxicity, and risk assessments being assigned to inexperienced employees to avoid pushback.

By Karim Bukhadurov and Jeff Ruch - Great Talks, July 3, 2021