Yes, you guys are right, I was thinking supply monopoly. I thought that is what a union was meant to do. I guess I was wrong. Sorry.
But isn't that something that the Airline Pilots Union does? Is it outdated? Stede --- William Pietri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 10:18, jhrothjr wrote: > > > But what you're talking about to me sounds like > something different. It > > > sounds like trying to build a supply monopoly. > I'd expect this to be > > > just as sub-optimal as any other monopoly. > > > > In any form of competitive environment, > > monopolies can't exist unless there is > > either some form of government (or other) > > coercion guaranteeing them, or if there > > is a sufficiently high economic barrier > > to the entry of a new firm. > > Yes. It sounded to me that Stede was after something > like either the > former (through standard union laws) or the latter > (through just getting > all the XP developers together). > > > > Ok, here's where I come back on topic. > > > > > > It seems to me that XP, in that it promotes team > cohesion already serves > > > some of the power-balancing functions of a > union. I'd love to hear > > > others' opinions, but in my experience the XP > teams I've worked closely > > > with were much better at making their opinions > heard to management, and > > > would be much more likely to actively support a > team member in > > > situations where management was being unfair to > an employee. > > > > This is basically true *if* you're internal, > > and you have relatively sane management. > > Much of what we hear on the list does not > > sound like reasonably sane management to me. > > Well, I have yet to see an XP team working in a > pretty insane > environment, so I don't have data on that end of the > spectrum. But my > experience so far is that XP teams are better than > traditional teams at > resisting and, more importantly, reforming > management craziness than > non-XP teams, regardless of the level of madness. > That's not to say that > the experience of XP teams in crazy environments > would be good, only > that it would be better than it would be otherwise. > > And experience aside, the theory seems plausible to > me. Not only does a > more cohesive team mean more collective action, but > XP also tightens > feedback loops. And a lot of management insanity > strikes me as > reasonable but wrong behavior amplified by slow or > broken feedback > loops. > > > William > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com > Yahoo! Groups Links > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
