This is an editorial comment.
On Tuesday this week, NRK reported on a nurse who blew the whistle regarding reprehensible conditions at her now former employer, Sunnfjord municipality, and lost the lawsuit in court. As a result, the nurse had to pay legal costs of one million kroner.
The nurse sued the municipality, demanding compensation for economic loss and non-economic damages from the employer after raising concerns about what she believed were reprehensible conditions.
One of the woman’s colleagues, specialist nurse Gunnlaug Silden, testified in court and spoke of an institution with passive managers and patients receiving inadequate care. Silden’s testimony supported the picture painted by the plaintiff in court about a culture of fear and routines surrounding the care of patients in the final phase of life. The specialist nurse said she was shocked when she discovered dying patients without care, as quoted by the newspaper Firda:
«One man had been lying in bed for two days without anyone touching him. I saw terminal patients who were black and blue on their backsides because they were simply left lying in bed.»
Furthermore, Silden recounted that speaking up was met with punishment.
- «Those who spoke up were given more and heavier work assignments.»
- «We were told not to write deviation reports, but to address things directly. When I reported things that were not in order, I experienced being demoted and given other tasks.»
She further stated that she had worked there for almost 24 years when she quit, because she could no longer bear it.
Not Even Professors Emeritus Will Comment on Whistleblowing Cases
A professor emeritus is a professor who has retired due to age but still has an affiliation with the university. Grafen has asked several such people, and others, including two who are so old they have one foot in the grave. In principle, they should have nothing to lose by speaking frankly, but…
Both avoid answering the questions Grafen poses, try to avoid answering entirely, and ultimately only say something completely general about the Working Environment Act, and that the losing party must pay legal costs.
As has been said, professors often comment on other matters, and quickly—cases within the «glass ceiling» or politically correct topics. Here, one can comment and discuss as much as one wants.
Grafen posed these questions:
- Can this be perceived as a message from the State that people who report reprehensible conditions will become debt slaves afterward?
- How might such court rulings affect other employees who wish to report reprehensible conditions?
- It has now been eight years since the membership organization, the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund), warned its own members against whistleblowing. Does this mean that employees» right to blow the whistle and protection has been permanently weakened since nothing has happened in eight years?
- What is necessary for whistleblowers to be able to report reprehensible conditions? Is the only way forward anonymous reporting? Written notices on blank paper without a sender? Should people report anonymously to the media instead of their employer?
Whistleblowers Have No Legal Protection
A quick look at the Norwegian Police Federation reveals an article titled «It is still not safe to blow the whistle in the Norwegian police» published in 2022.
It was back in 2016 that the Norwegian Police Federation recommended its members refrain from whistleblowing. The background for this decision is all the experiences the organization had related to whistleblowing.
According to the Norwegian Police Federation, people became ill from whistleblowing, both physically and mentally. They do not want to expose their members to this pressure, because their safety is paramount.
Grafen has attempted to get politicians to comment, including Communications Manager Kjetil Løset in the Progress Party. Løset, however, is as silent as the grave, even though the party gladly comments on other matters.
The silence is also pervasive within academia. Grafen’s impression is that whistleblowing is a taboo and is neither permissible nor acceptable in Norway. All lawsuits in recent years show that whistleblowers have virtually no protection and end up unemployed with significant debt.
Nothing has changed if one looks far back. A whistleblower in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who reported financial mismanagement more than 20 years ago had to move to Africa and settle there.
So, trust the good advice from Grafen (and the Norwegian Police Federation): Do not blow the whistle no matter what the issue is. The best solution is to apply for jobs in other organizations and say you are doing it to try new challenges and gain more experience.