Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for March 09, 2015

You’re not getting much interest for that principle.

You certainly should have another job lined up if you are going to “stand on principle” because by definition that means defying what your boss wants. You can go around doing the right thing all the time as long as your boss agrees with it. To “stand” implies that someone is opposing you and that is almost always your boss. The only exception is if some how it is a “public” matter and then it could be the public pushing to get you fired because they don’t agree, and your boss/company caves to that.

it still sucks for someone to get fired for doing the ethically correct thing…….when many of our corporations are getting away with doing unethical things at the pencil sellers expense…also at the expense of many of us pencil buyers..

I made that mistake in 2001, quitting a good IT job just as the dot com bubble was bursting. It took me three years and a bankruptcy before I had a good job again.

cloudster… I hoope it was not hal 9000 from2001 a space odyssey that caused your problems…he was a trickster..

Bosses will tolerate you standing on principle if you are really good at your job.

“Lesson #1 on the Principles of Business”Business has no principles.-Lesson #2:Don’t get caught.

P.L.E.A.S.E.Provide Legal Exculpation And Sign Everything

My ex-husband kept turning down jobs on ‘principle’, because he had a mindset that he would only take his ‘dream job.’ He ended up homeless.

Cousin Eddie in “National Lampoon’s Vacation” was holding out for an executive position.

Fine humor for a Monday morning!

I think any cartoonist so dedicated to the idea that the business world is unprincipled should never be hired by any business. On principle.

The lost principle? Or believing yourself.

“After the dems passed NAFTA…”

May I call your attention to a bit of history, courtesy of Wikipedia: Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992 In other words, the NAFTA agreement was negotiated by and signed by a Republican president. Which makes sense, as there’s nothing “progressive” or “liberal” about it; from one end to the other it’s a sell-out of working people (here, in Canada, and in Mexico) for the benefit of politically-connected big businesses.

Not to say Bubba Clinton is blameless—he was an enthusiastic cheerleader for globalization and deregulation, and he signed the banking “reform” act that led directly to the crash of ‘08 (though it was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress). As always, there’s plenty of blame to go around both parties.

Puddleglum, reality, science and facts have always had a liberal bias. Instead of trying to understand that, they keep trying to fight it. That wears them out and makes them cranky, and then that vein on the side of their neck starts bulging and turning from bright red to deep purple.Looking like it’s going to burst as it pulses vibrantly….But seriously, they have no way of understanding what you wrote..

Sometimes, it depends on how important the principle is, and whether you can live with yourself for looking the other way.

The philosophy of ‘going along to get along’ (in other words, not standing on principle) didn’t work for many of those who served Hitler, and, at some point in the distant future, it won’t work for some of those who are doing it now, in some of the businesses that endanger public health through pollution, or sale of substandard products, etc.-Again, it depends on what that principle is, though. Standing up to the boss just because he (or she) hires his nephew for a summer job instead of your nephew is just kinda self-destructive…