4 ms·
>> a company might pay each member a bit more for a team experienced in working together, as in theory they should be more productive more quickly. On the othe
by TallGuyShort 9y ago
>> a company might pay each member a bit more for a team experienced in working together, as in theory they should be more productive more quickly.
On the other hand, if you already have an established team, merging them when they see themselves as distinct groups might be tough.
The other issue I see is that I doubt companies will want this to become common in the industry. Even if it's great for hiring (and I think it often would be - especially for new projects), do you want support something that might encourage a group of all the employees in a particular specialization to band together and decide they want to all leave at once? I wouldn't. Especially since that might happen right at the time when new development is slowing down and deep knowledge about the current system is the most valuable asset related to the project.
- OpenDrapery 9y agoI guess there is a fine line between collective bargaining and holding a company hostage. Remember when the cast of Friends all negotiated for $1M/episode, and they pitched it as "you pay us all, or you don't have a product"? I don't recall any public outcry that they were holding NBC hostage. As we move toward a completely digital society, it only makes sense that the digital gatekeepers will have more leverage. Employers hate that.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago>> I don't recall any public outcry that they were holding NBC hostage. My mental image of the cast of Friends holding NBC hostage is that of two people with guns trained on each other, both yelling, "come any closer and I'll shoot."