The context of these thoughts is the tendency of software houses to obtain written bonds from their employees (mainly s/w developers) to keep the attrition rate low. The general opinion says thats the only solution to minimise loss.

Bond is surely not the 'only' visibe solution to keep the employee-employer relation intact.

Granted, the IT industry is highly volatile. There are so many opportunities for professionals that job hopping has become the name of the game. You can seldom satisfy your employee for long. There will undoubtedly be some one to entice him/her away with a heavier pay packet and perks. In such a scenario, how is a company supposed to safegaurd its interests ? How do you train your employees and still have no fear that they will leave for greener pastures ? This feeling of insecurity on the part of employers seems to have given importance to the 'bond' phenomenon.

Firstly, is money everything ? Most employees will not think of leaving just for money unless they feel they are badly underpaid. And if they have salaries nearing the industry standards, other factors such as work environment, job satisfaction and personal growth count heavily.

In terms of employee-employer relationship, the bond is inconsequential. If an employee is happy, we don't need a bond. And what good output will one get out of a bonded but frustrated employee ?

Retaining people is an HR issue. That you have to bond people means your HR is not up to the mark.

Those who give statistically detailed examples of the projects completed because none of the persons on the team left it midway, and attribute the success to bonds, should also count the number of talented professionals they failed to attract for whom their bond meant losing freedom to be happy.