tilii,
From my point of view the "bonding" is there for 2 basic reasons:
1. I have a limited annual budget and I want to get value from my investment. Sounds cold and impersonal I know, but a company exists to make money. If I invest in one of my team I want to get some useful work out of them and if a "bonding" arrangement makes somone stop and think about the moral implications, then so be it.
2. Linked in part to the first reason, the area I work in is suffering a shortage of good and experienced (sound familiar?) people, so by "bonding" people I believe it does make people think about their responsibilities to their employer.
I treat all my team as I would like to be treated: with respect and consideration. I hope I haven't come over as a Capitalist Stormtrooper.
The only reason I pursued the employee that skipped off was because she had taken a course in Web design, which did not really have much to do with her primary task. I agreed to let her do this course as it may have had a future role in our department, but before I could make use of her new skills she had departed. I felt that I had gone out of my way to accomodate her wishes, and that she had abused my trust. I originally sought repayment from her directly, but she discussed it with her new employer who contacted me and we resolved the issue in a businesslike and amicable way. The companies were both Dutch based.
I don't particularly agree with endentured service either tilii, but I don't see it as such. It is only because people have abused the system before that this sort of arrangement has become common.
What I find highly objectionable is when a company bonds somone for an unrealistic amount. I believe it was SIA that bonded some pilots for $100,000 on 747-400's. I don't think that that sort of bonding is fair.