Wow. You probably didn't need to know all that.

Naw, but I see your point, you did what you had to do and what you thought was right! Thx for sharing, I can hear your frustration!

Regardless of the fact that no laws were broken a man will go to jail and you thnk that is good?

I don't think that is good neither did I say that.

Martha Stewart was convicted of a process crime

Martha should never have gone to jail. She was another person who was a fall guy. What was done to her should never have happened and they did it to make an expample of her.

I had an officer ask me to be a team player. I informed him the only sport I play is golf. I don't know any team sports, He went to jail after the third officer in as many years went to jail the officers figured out I did not plan to take one for the team.

To Quote UDigit/Chris "There's a fine line between being a team player and being a patsy". There's also a thin line between how far you are willing to go where a lie is concerned. I wouldn't encourage or agree with anyone in breaking the law.

I was under the impression that being a team player meant being able to get along with others on the job, brainstorm together to learn ways to make things work better, and help each other get the job done

It is Trudy, that's it in a nutshell. However, there are so many things involved when it comes to office politics. It's a game in a sense and you're either in or you're out. Sometimes you have no choice but to take a stance depending on what's going on. The stance you take will be what your belief system is.

They wouldn't have my loyalty if it meant being a liar.

I wouldn't want anyone on my team if they can't be loyal were I the one in charge. Like it or not, there are choices individuals have to make when they work for someone else. The decisions they make helps them to keep their jobs are be considered a 'traitor' or undependable. While the companies might not be asking you to lie, break the law and all the other detribmental things that would happen, and any company that do that don't deserve to be in business, but if they can't rely on you as someone who works for them, then what use are you to them?

Your mom's the speed limit.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this one Braeden?!! I'm missing it!

Loyalty back then meant that you did what was best for the company because what was good for the compnay was good for you the worker. If it meant working off the clock to finish a project on time and on budget you did what you could. Because how well would you be able to feed your family if your companay lost the contract and went oug of business?

This is a very good point and there are companies that are still like that. I can't name one because I don't work for every company out there. But I've been lucky to work with a few that have been good to work for. I do however, understand why you think they aren't there anymore. There are only a few of these left.

I think corporations are acting in the best interest of themselves and job loyalty just isn't affordable. Much more so because of economic forces then "Unions". You can blame worker productivity slackness or better worker productivity on the dedication of a team, but it comes down to a variety of factors, both internal and external. If those factors don't like up favorably for that company that company loses business or it's value and the business goes elsewhere, where a better company, i.e. more profitable or productive more valuable, does the work.

I agree with this point as well!

t is far worse for you and another employee to be caught lying, or for the decision made because of your lie potentially far greater damaging to others, then telling the truth or choosing your sharing of information very wisely.

This is why it's up to the individual to decide if saying to someone that the boss is in but he doesn't want to talk to you, or just saying he's not here right now, is worth it or not. Did that hurt anyone? No. It's almost a natural part of covering for the boss as you're expected to do. Is that such a major lie that I will go to hell for or me using my smarts to keep my boss covered while he does other things that require his attention and will get to that person later. It's up to the person doing the job to know how far to go. I've been in this game long enough to know right from wrong and know what to do, how to do it. It doesn't mean I'm not a moral person and it doesn't mean that I'm a liar either.

Mr. Libby's economy with the truth is far beyond, a white lie, it will destroy his credibility in the public eye, for the rest of his life. Beyond that, he will always be questioned behind closed doors, at employers in the future, about his honesty and ethical judgment, and that is a pretty difficult burden for any man to bear.

When you're in a position of Mr. Libby's calibre then he should have weighed the cost to himself. It does put him in a bad light and unfortunately he is the one to blame for lying. But you cant' say he wasn't loyal.

Libby may have been the fall guy if it was a legitimate investigation.  Investigations are meant to find out if a crime was committed and (if so) who did it.  Even Fitzgerald himself can't seem to find out if Valarie Plame held a covert position with the CIA.  If he never even established that, then he never answered the first question. 

Then, to add to Fitzgerald's lack of integrity, once he learned who "outed" Valarie Plame, he continued the sham investigation.  Fitzgerald knew who "did it" long before he even questioned Libby... which means that Fitzgerald had no real right to be questioning him in the first place.

The fact is, Fitzgerald never cared about Plame or even who "outed" her.  His ONLY purpose was to dig up political dirt on his political enemies.  Being too incompetent to accomplish that, he settled for the only person who remotely committed any kind of crime.

The Justice Department should have Fitzgerald in chains and stocks so we can all mock him for the fool he his.

His ONLY purpose was to dig up political dirt on his political enemies. Being too incompetent to accomplish that, he settled for the only person who remotely committed any kind of crime.

Isn't that disgusting?!!!!

The Justice Department should have Fitzgerald in chains and stocks so we can all mock him for the fool he his.

YEA...let's string him up...put him on a rock out in public where he can be ridicule....I'm not laughing...I'm serious! Ok, maybe not that serious, maybe not on a rock......

Hi Ted, nice to see ya!

I always wondered about this when you see in movies, they get the call and all the workers start shredding documents. Or you see the whistleblower who is ostracized for standing up for what's right. What would you do if your boss came in and told you to start shredding documents?

I worked for a company that had questionable business practices. I don't know that they did anything illegal but certainly they did things that were unethical. I did my job but moved on as soon as I found a new one.

While the companies might not be asking you to lie, break the law and all the other detribmental things that would happen, and any company that do that don't deserve to be in business, but if they can't rely on you as someone who works for them, then what use are you to them?

If they're not asking me to lie, break the law, or do detrimental things,  there's no problem,  right?  except for the big but that followed your statement...are you saying they can't rely on someone and are no use to the company then if they don't lie?  sure reads that way. 

Any place I"ve worked has relied on me and my being loyal, honest, and hardworking.  I've had no problems on the job either using my work ethics.

They wouldn't have my loyalty if it meant being a liar. I wouldn't want anyone on my team if they can't be loyal were I the one in charge

Wow Serenity,  you wouldn't want anyone on your team if they won't lie,  isn't that what you're saying?  all for politics in the office?  I maintain my stance.  no lying for a company.

 

If it meant working off the clock to finish a project on time and on budget you did what you could. Because how well would you be able to feed your family if your companay lost the contract and went oug of business? Yes, it was a different time and a different way of thinking that most people today would not understand.

Now there is no loyalty so I understand why you don't understand why taking one for the team means nothing to you.

If "taking one for the team"  means being dishonest and lying for someone,  NO Thank You! 

 

If it meant working off the clock to finish a project on time and on budget you did what you could. Because how well would you be able to feed your family if your companay lost the contract and went oug of business? Yes, it was a different time and a different way of thinking that most people today would not understand.

This makes perfect sense to me and I agree with you it was a different time and a different way of thinking and for the most part was pretty darn good.  Individuals that owned a business and built it up worked "with" the employee,  by that I mean the boss was supportive of the family and cared about his/her workers. 

Today's corporations care naught for the employee,  they're disposable.  How sad. 

Over several decades I've learned the hard way that what matters is FAMILY.  First and foremost.  Take good care of yourself so you can take care of others,  which trickles down to the job.  A healthy and happy person is the best employee.

 

What would you do if your boss came in and told you to start shredding documents?

Thank heavens that has never happened!


I wouldn't do it, that's where I would draw the line! If I ever found out I was working for a 'shifty' place I would be out of there so fast!

except for the big but that followed your statement...are you saying they can't rely on someone and are no use to the company then if they don't lie? sure reads that way.

Not at all Trudy. What I meant was how do they know they can rely on you to be loyal to the company if you can't do a simple thing such as cover for your boss if he's too busy to talk to someone? How can he rely on you to be his assistant if you can deflect the people coming at him from all directions, not necessarily to lie (perhaps my phraseology previously is wrong) or break the law, but rather what use would you be to him if he doesn't know you have his back?

It's like this, why go work for someone if you're not going to be loyal to them? Would you run at the first sign of trouble, all hands off and you're no where to be found, I'm not talking legal troble but rather, office politics trouble, or would you stand your ground and let your truth be known? That's the type of reliabilty I'm talking about. Not one of breaking the law.

Wow Serenity, you wouldn't want anyone on your team if they won't lie, isn't that what you're saying? all for politics in the office? I maintain my stance. no lying for a company.

No, I am not saying that you have to be a liar to be on my team, I mean I have to know that I can rely on you to do your job, to drop everything else and do what needs to be done because you're a team player, whether or not it's in your job description. I have to know that if I'm too busy, I can rely on Trudy to handle anything that comes our way in a professional manner. Not to lie, but to be a team player and take care of things without me being bothered. Or rather, If I"m out in the trenches I know I want someone who's going to be reliable so that I can run across the field because you've got my back. That's all I'm saying.

If it meant working off the clock to finish a project on time and on budget you did what you could. Because how well would you be able to feed your family if your companay lost the contract and went oug of business? Yes, it was a different time and a different way of thinking that most people today would not understand. This makes perfect sense to me and I agree with you it was a different time and a different way of thinking and for the most part was pretty darn good.

This is most definately still an important part of working for someone else Trudy. Although more companies have become 'cold' and only looking out for themselves....and let's face it, why shouldn't they, that's what they are paying you for and owe you nothing else but a paycheck and maybe benefits if you're lucky!

Over several decades I've learned the hard way that what matters is FAMILY. First and foremost

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this!

A healthy and happy person is the best employee.

I agree on this too! But are you going to be a happy employee if your boss is not happy with your work? And btw Trudy, I do respect your stance. Don't think that I'm trying to dissuade you from it. I'm just trying to show you a different view point on what it's like for most people where office politics is concerned. It 's not a matter of being a liar, it's a matter of doing what needs to be done to get the job done. However, not at the expense of my morals.

"It does put him in a bad light and unfortunately he is the one to blame for lying. But you cant' say he wasn't loyal."

He wasn't loyal to the ethical and fiduciary responsibilities he had to the people of the nation. The duty to do the right thing. The belief that the good in people will always triumph the evil. That type of thing. Where was his loyalty to telling the truth?

No he wasn't. Neither were his bosses or boss who asked him to lie.





And this is why he did it, out of duty and loyalty to his boss. Sad isn't it!




This is where or why his good should have come through, to himself and not try to cover up. However, his loyalty was what he did. And the truth did come out didn't it? Goodness won over evil...the truth revealed!

"And this is why he did it, out of duty and loyalty to his boss. Sad isn't it!"

You duty to do the right thing, is not always and readily what your bosses whims are. Especially when what your boss asks you to do is unethical. Covering up misconduct by lying is unethical.

Covering up misconduct by lying is unethical.

We're pretty much in agreement on this one Dan!

Yup