Should whistleblowers be rewarded financially? Photograph: Frank Baron
Who would you go to if you wanted to blow the whistle about serious wrongdoing in your workplace: your managing director? The police? An official watchdog? Or a tabloid newspaper?
The lure of a hefty financial reward can embolden angry but terrified employees with the necessary courage to inform on the fraudulent activities of a boss or co-worker. Indeed, it can compensate for the huge risks - not least the possibility of losing your job and never being able to work in the same industry again.
In this weekend's Guardian Work section, we report on how the government is now suggesting legislation that would see whistleblowers rewarded with huge, officially endorsed payouts that could outstrip even the fattest of tabloid cheques.
Similar legislation already exists in the US, and has done for decades. Called a qui tam lawsuit, it allows employees to bring cases on behalf of the federal government, and receive 15-30% of any damages paid out.
Under California's whistleblower law, for example, tugboat captain Kevin Bartoo has just been awarded a $12m (£6m) share of damages paid when his employer was found guilty of concealing how much sand they were really mining to pay less tax.
A consultation is now under way with a view to introducing a similar bounty for such pro-social behaviour in the UK.
Should whistleblowers be rewarded by cash payments? Or is it just using greed to combat greed? Tell us what you think of incentives for whistleblowing and cast your vote in our poll.
