This is their main axis of leverage.
the bigger and more complex the software project, the more scope there is for completely deniable fuckups to creep in.
sometimes it's as simple as not pushing back on an obviously bad idea pushed from up above. or it could be spotting a problem and just not doing anything about it.
these small changes compound over time.
the idea of doing this would of course be massively offensive to anybody who was against unionization on principle, a number of whom comment on hacker news. that doesn't, of course, mean it wouldn't work.
Perhaps I misunderstood your suggestion? I'm not sure how an action that is subtle enough that the perpetrator isn't recognised as having done anything would be useful in negotiations.
There is such a concept as "work-to-rule", that is, follow the letter of your contract and instructions from management and go no further than that. Is that the kind of action you're referring to?
It looked like you just swapped the word subtle for clearly and declared it wouldnt work.
>I'm not sure how an action that is subtle enough that the perpetrator isn't recognised
The perpetrator is everyone.
>There is such a concept as "work-to-rule"
Now you're getting it. There are some subtleties to work to rule so i wouldnt necessarily rush to conclusions a second time also.
jimjambw•9mo ago