There are actually two issues involved with that. One is the need to make people whole, and the word that I believe is used is “restoration”. That means restoring to the person what they would have had, with all the privileges and everything going with what they would have had, based on the balance of probability--because you can never prove everything--and making assumptions so that they now are made whole. I agree. That is totally separate from the issue of damages. That's making whole.
The other one, which is equally important to me, is precedent. I mentioned the word “precedent” earlier. No whistle-blower has ever had that happen to them. It would be an excellent precedent for a number of us to have that happen. I would strongly support it because it also gives a strong signal to the future that just because damage was done in the past, it can be fixed; therefore, the ones who have any information and want to come forward will be more likely to do so, because they will see results. Nobody has ever seen a result yet.