RSS
Print This PageThe Opacity of Transparency International
The story has been ignored in the MSM and the English blogosphere, but the details are available here. The short version is that a single mom was hired by Transparency International, the anti-corruption NGO, to work part time on a probationary basis. She was then offered a permanent job for 30 hours a week at a slightly higher salary. She declined, stating that she would have to quit her second job and the salary she was offered did not offset the lost wages from the second job. The woman relayed her struggles with Transparency International to a blogger friend, Moni, who posted the details on her blog. It is here that the story gets interesting.
Transparency International (”TI”) then threatened to sue the blogger if she did not remove the post within 48 hours. Rather than back down, the blogger posted the threatening email from Transparency International on her blog. TI then demanded that the email be removed or they would sue her for that as well. A blog storm then ensued, with the German blogosphere abuzz with the story. Many are now proposing boycotts of TI, encouraging donors to stop funding the anti-corruption NGO. There are now hundreds, if not thousands of posts addressing TI’s conduct. The blogger Moni has become a cause célèbre in Germany.
Several thoughts based on my understanding of the facts. First, Transparency International is a wonderful organization that has done tremendous work for the cause of anti-corruption. No one involved in this conflict debates that fact. I have followed them since the mid-1990s and credit their work in highlighting the cause of anti-corruption like no other organization. So it is particularly disappointing to see TI’s missteps. Second, it does not appear that TI violated any laws or even acted unethical in making the job offer that it made. So this is not appropriately labelled a “whistleblower” case. It may have been quite insensitive to a single mother’s plight, but based on my understanding of the facts, it seems hard to argue that TI’s conduct was much more than that. Third, an NGO like TI must be quite cautious about real or perceived hypocrisy. It is odd that an organization named transparency is discouraging transparency in its business dealings with its employees. Fourth, TI’s serious mistake appears to be the angry response to the blogger. To issue threatening letters and lawsuits to a blogger is to risk public disclosure of the communication. When you battle the press (broadly defined to include bloggers), it is wrong to assume that that fight will not reach the public domain. So be particularly careful how you fight. Fifth, the TI case illustrates how the blogosphere is changing the way people do business and resolve conflict. Prior to the Internet, questionable behavior by corporations or employees often would not see the light of day. But today unusual behavior by a corporation or an employee is often only one degree of separation away from the Internet.
I would be most interested in readers with facility in German to outline further details of the story in the comments.
Related Posts
http://opiniojuris.org/2006/03/28/the-opacity-of-transparency-international/
6 Responses
- There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.
Some german MSM have picked up the story, now.
at 1:34 pm EST no
Just a quick note that, assuming by the “English” bloggosphere you mean English speakers, I’m not sure it’s being ignored. I’m an American, and I have received about 300 emails about the story since I started writing about it a few days ago.
at 2:20 pm EST scottage
Scottage,
Good to know. Thanks.
Roger Alford
at 2:23 pm EST Roger Alford
some updates:
1. evening today a blogger could speak with Dagmar Schroeder, the managing director of TI Germany. She told him that TI will step back and has no interest anymore to threaten the blogger named “Moni”:
Netzpolitik.org
2. Some of the big online MSM reported today about the case:
Tagesschau.de
(the biggest TV organization in Germany)
Focus Online
Netzzeitung (an interview with the blogger Moni)
3. The case was in many aspects highly critical for TI:
- Moni is an alone-education mother with a handicapped child
- her friendgirl (once working for TI and was fired) is an alone-educating mother too
- both were have been sued by TI
- both have no financial backups to defend themself as they say
- in the center of all the critics by many bloggers stood and stands the most important aspect: free speech
- as you say, it was very important to many bloggers that TI isnt that transparent as they state
- it was not the point that Monis friend was fired
at 3:09 pm EST Robert Basic
A small correction. The job offer was unethical. The friend was asked to work 50% more without a 50% higher wage. She asked for 50% more money and alternatively offered to continue working the same old hours for the same old wage. And was instantly fired. The job was given to some (society?) lady, for which money didn’t matter. Legal? Maybe. Ethical? No. Also, TI-D currently offers two intern jobs for graduates for 300 Euro for six month of work. This is exploitation of labor. Short and simple.
But that is not what the issue is about. The issue is that TI-D set its lawyer lose with a threatening letter. A threatening letter to a single unemployed mother of a disabled child. Threatening serious legal and monetary consequences. The monetary damage threat is real. In Germany it can be inflicted without having a case at all. For an NGO trying to establish high ethics standards it’s a shame trying to bully her into taking down a perfectly legal, and as TI-D has now implicitly confirmed, factual article. A shame for an NGO which claims to seek non-confrontal solutions, transparency in business, honesty and which claims to support freedom of opinion and fair wages.
The blogger, in fear of the probems, put the article down, published what all this was about and published the lawyer’s letter (excluding details like the lawyers name). The guy freaked out and did sent the next threatening letter. Comming up with even more bullshit-law. TI-D now states that the second letter was not sent on behalf of TI-D, but the lawyer was acting in his own interest. The more worrying thing is that the lawyer is also the ethics counselore of TI-D, but apparently with a rather strange set of ethics. Latest at that point German bloggers freaked out. Oh, and TI-D wants to keep him as a lawyer and ethics counselore (old buddy, you know), so apparently no one believes TI-D that the second letter was not on behalf of TI-D.
For more fun, when TI-D was contakted by bloggers they were basically told to piss of, and TI-D cited data protection laws why they don’t want to discuss the issue. Only to publish a press release later, providing full details of the employee, the wages under question, etc. (that’s why people now know that the blogger didn’t lie, the figures and events match). The press release was very agggressive, in fact a violation of data protection laws and apparently formulated to harm the blogger and the friend. A few hours later TI-D retracted the press release, but by their own words it is still available to the right people if they ask. So much for transparency.
From where I sit, TI-D looks like it is run by a bunch of incompetent idiots doing insider relationship deals to maintain their standard of living. Bagging money from the government and from donations and just doing lip-service to the goals of TI. A bunch of disgusting lobby whores.
at 4:11 pm EST Carlo
Carlo sums it up perfectly. There is only one revolving mistake (i guess, i made that too at some point):moni has a disabled child, but she furtunately is not single and in her own words the father cares greatly and gives her all backup she now needs.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of germanys most important newspapers cited Mr Bäumel from TI-D: “All we can do now will be wrong.”. Of course, this is not true. If TI-D would apologize at Moni (their own press release from monday evening confirmed her story!), it would be appreciated.
The newspaper cites Mr. Bäumel another time with the statement what they will do instead: “Nothing. We simply will do nothing.”
SZ Article can be found here
at 4:12 am EST jensscholz