Executing a Mass Departmental Exodus in the Workplace?

rerunn asks: "The recent story about the consultants from JBOSS walking out couldn't have had better timing. I'll save the drama and cut to the scenario: You and a few close co-workers make up the core grunts of 'the department'. The company relies heavily on your department for many services, some of which, other departments cannot provide. You like your job, it provides great satisfaction. Suddenly, the company realizes its in deep financial shit, and starts making cut backs. This impacts the department. You suddenly find yourself working 50-60 hour weeks, put on call with no compensation, given unreasonable amounts of work and generally treated like dirt. You get the feeling that the company is just going to take advantage of you no matter how and what happens. You get together with the rest of the department for a 'fsck this company' meeting and decide to walk out. Have you ever done this?? (We are so close!) What was the outcome?"

Comments

Hey, what if....

[jkrise]

The entire XP team walked out, saying "This code isn't gonna get good anytime next 10 years?"

The entire IIS team walked out, saying "We can't touch apache in the next 5 years"

The entire Hailstorm team walked out "No one's gonna buy this!"

Sounds like all of the above happened - prolly explains why we get the same old code with new names.

Re:No profanity please

[TheShadow]

It is very unprofessional.

Do you actually expect /. to be professional?

Re:Why does Bush Hate America?

[cheezedawg]

sending troops off to war for ficticious reasons

The reasons were not ficticious. Our justifications for going to war were actually quite independant of whether or not we find WMDs in Iraq.

which will increase terrorism

There is absolutely no way you can make that claim. In fact, from where I am sitting, the President has done a pretty good job at reducing terrorism- there has not been a substantial attack against us since 9/11.

driving the economy into a train-wreck

The economy was already a train wreck when President Bush took office. Not only that, but we have since found out that a lot of the economic success of the late 1990's was not even real (the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals all date back into the 1990's).

and increasing spending to Reaganite levels

Total government spending in 2002 was 19.5% of the GDP, and that is substantially lower than many of the Clinton years (Clinton spent more than that through 1997- Source). The increase from 2001 to 2002 can mainly be attributed to the War on Terrorism.

the goal is destroy all social programs while benefitting the rich.

You might notice from the Budget document linked above that spending on Human Resources (Education, social services, health, medicare, social security) has increased under President Bush.

And don't you get tired of the same old class warfare arguments?