Information liberation. Challenging the corruptions of information power

ideal. Because workers are afraid of the consequences of telling the truth, they commonly tell bosses what they think the bosses want to hear. The top managers thus can become quite out of touch with what’s happening. Similarly, when orders are passed down the chain, they may be ignored, reinterpreted or manipulated, in many cases just so workers can get on with the job.

Bureaucratic elites like to collect information about workers, from personal details to comments on job performance. This information can be used to control the workers. On the other hand, information about the elites is not made available to workers. In other words, surveillance is natural to bureaucracies, and much of it is targeted at workers.

Bureaucratic elites have considerable power and, as usual, it tends to corrupt. When possible, elites give themselves high salaries, plush offices, grandiose titles and special privileges. They can exercise power by supporting workers who support them personally and by penalising those who criticise or just annoy them. They can foster fear by intimidating subordinates. They can create havoc through reprimands, demotions, dismissals, restructuring and a host of other mechanisms. Just about anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy has a good idea of the sort of problems that can arise.

A bureaucracy is not a free society. There are no elections for top offices. There is little free speech, and there is no free press for opponents of the current elites. Open opponents of the ruling group are likely to be harassed, demoted or dismissed. There is no independent judiciary to deal with grievances.

In fact, a bureaucracy is rather similar to an authoritarian state. [3] The most important difference is that an authoritarian state can use the army and police against internal opponents. Bureaucratic elites normally can use only methods such as demotion and dismissal — there are no formal systems to use violence. (In a few bureaucracies, such as the army, force can be used officially against dissident employees.) These methods are potent enough for many purposes.

Bureaucratic elites also control information in order to maintain power in relation to other organisations. If a corporation reveals its plans to competitors, it is vulnerable to challenge or even takeover. If a government department reveals its internal operations, it makes itself vulnerable to critics, whether politicians, other government departments or lobby groups.

Finally, bureaucratic elites control information to cover up corruption and bad or dangerous decisions. Tobacco companies covered up research showing the addictiveness of cigarettes. Police cover up bribery and incompetence. Politicians pass laws to prevent release of government documents dealing with “national security” in order to cover up embarrassing actions.

Free speech by employees is a potent threat to bureaucratic elites. It threatens to undermine elite control in the bureaucracy itself, it threatens to weaken bureaucratic elites in relation to other organisations, and it threatens to expose dubious decisions and corrupt practices by the elites themselves. It is precisely for these reasons that free speech for employees is vital as both a method and a goal.

Arguments

Various arguments are put forward to justify the controls imposed on speech by employees. It’s worth examining a few of these.[4]

Employees get paid. They shouldn’t expect anything else. Why not? In other circumstances — outside of bureaucracies — payment is not allowed as an excuse to deny people freedom of speech. Shareholders receive dividends. Do they lose their right to speak out?

Free speech will reveal trade secrets. Perhaps so, but this isn’t such a big deal. Corporations spend large amounts of money on industrial espionage, including hiring staff from other companies as well as covert listening. Free speech would make this process more honest and open.

Anyway, society benefits when good ideas are widely known. Corporate innovation can be improved when ideas “leak” out.[5] Overall, secrecy is not an advantage, even for corporations.

Industrial societies have the capacity to produce plenty of goods for everyone. Overproduction is a far greater problem than underproduction. Therefore, one of the most important aims of work should be to provide a satisfying experience for the workers.

Employees agree to keep quiet as part of their voluntarily accepted employment contract. The so-called employment contract is quite one-sided. Few workers have easy mobility. They don’t have the financial resources available to employers.

Employers have a right to run their enterprises the way they want. Certainly not. The “rights” of employers are restricted in lots of ways. Laws prevent hiring of some people, such as children; laws prevent hazardous working conditions; laws prevent indiscriminate impacts on the environment. Enterprises are part of society, and impacts on the society are taken seriously — including impacts on stockholders, clients and other enterprises.

When there is control over speech, those who decide on and exercise the control have power over others. This power is corrupting. It can be used to cover up abuses by elites and to attack those who might challenge the elites. This is precisely how it is used in practice.

Most people believe that “good speech” — speech that is informed and enlightened — should be encouraged. Elites argue that they must control the “bad speech” of others so that only “good speech” is allowed, namely only things that have their approval. But there is a different way to challenge “bad speech” — by challenging it with dialogue and debate. Only by encouraging people’s capacity for critical thinking and argumentation will “good speech” become the genuine voice of the people.

Whistleblowing

Generally speaking, whistleblowing[6] is an act of dissent. Researcher Bill De Maria gives the following more specific definition. Whistleblowing is:

— an open disclosure about significant wrongdoing

— made by a concerned citizen totally or predominantly motivated by notions of public interest,

— who has perceived the wrongdoing in a particular role