"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
It'a a little different.

I agree it's different. It's still misguided.

The companies are not protecting their employees, they are protecting the
=one= project that all [four] of these [key] employees manage.

First, most policies aren't that narrowly written. Second, my point is (in
this case) that the cost/benefit analysis isn't being done. The company is
looking only at the potential cost, but not the potential benefits (applied
over the number of successful outcomes, of course). Third, a well-managed
company ought to be able to replace the employees on that project without
causing significant long-term harm to the company. The "cost" part of the
analysis ought to be relatively small.

It may still be silly, but it is different.

Yes, it's different. I agree. It's still silly, and it's silly in a
similar (though not identical) way.

I worked for a company that had to ship the negatives for a film it was
making from overseas. They insisted on two separate flights, which IMHO
was dumb. Loss of =either= of the flights would have meant loss of the
project.

Yup...that's dumb.

Of course, it's dumb that losing a single resource like film negatives could
cause the loss of a project. At worst, it should only require repeating
work. If the work is unrepeatable, the film should be duplicated prior to
shipment.

Again, poorly managed project (even ignoring the "two flights" rule).

Pete