10 ms·

Number 3 is pretty rediculous. I don't think I've ever seen another company try to claim that they are doing employees a favor by paying them less money than t

by dx87 8y ago

Number 3 is pretty rediculous. I don't think I've ever seen another company try to claim that they are doing employees a favor by paying them less money than their peers.

Xixi 8y ago
The issue with number 3 is for the employer, not the employee. GitLab doesn't want demotivated/unhappy employees to stick around: they want them to actively look for other opportunities and leave. Sounds reasonable to me.
- clubm8 8y ago
  >The issue with number 3 is for the employer, not the employee. GitLab doesn't want demotivated/unhappy employees to stick around: they want them to actively look for other opportunities and leave. Sounds reasonable to me. Ironically if you paid a high salary but allowed people to work in a low COL area, this wouldn't be an issue... because the workers could aggressively save for retirement and semi-retire fairly early in their career.
  - ozim 8y ago
    But you want unhappy employee to leave in 2-3 months or ASAP not sticking for couple of years to earn his FIRE. I would say after 6 months you get to know quirks of company up to that you might still be oblivious to bodies in wardrobe.
- sytse 8y ago
  That is exactly the reason. I updated the site https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/5833b6f0838524fe61659a5363a5f9672d4a6764 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/5833b6f0...
clubm8 8y ago
> Number 3 is pretty rediculous. I don't think I've ever seen another company try to claim that they are doing employees a favor by paying them less money than their peers. I've heard it used in the context of US government work. (They simply don't want people who are "in it for the money"). I don't know if that's based on studies or just a feeling.
- sjg007 8y ago
  Huh? For government jobs, people are in it for the healthcare and the pension.
  - clubm8 8y ago
    > Huh? For government jobs, people are in it for the healthcare and the pension. Pensions don't exist anymore, you get a savings account (403b IIRC) w/ some % matching contrib
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
skrebbel 8y ago
He did not claim that. It's bad for the company, much more than for the employees. Unhappy employees who stay for financial reasons tend to negatively impact culture, quality and speed.
sytse 8y ago
As a company we don't want unhappy team members.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  Thanks for explaining your reasons. I've been in a golden handcuffs situation (clawback clause on a meager signon/moving bonus that I wouldn't be able to pay back) and I thought the same thing: why would they insist I stay on when I'm most definitely moving on and won't give my best in the remaining time?
  - sytse 8y ago
    Thanks. Mind if I link to this comment from our handbook?
castlecrasher2 8y ago
Number 3 is one of the most reasonable on the list...it's strange you think someone in SF or NYC would ever sign on if they would be paid the exact same as someone in podunk, MT despite the CoL differences.
qaq 8y ago
I don't think you understand the motivation it's not a favor for employee it's a benefit to the company they don't want people who don't want to stick around purely because they pay highest wage for a given market.

by dx87 8y ago

Number 3 is pretty rediculous. I don't think I've ever seen another company try to claim that they are doing employees a favor by paying them less money than their peers.

Xixi 8y ago

The issue with number 3 is for the employer, not the employee. GitLab doesn't want demotivated/unhappy employees to stick around: they want them to actively look for other opportunities and leave. Sounds reasonable to me.

clubm8 8y ago
>The issue with number 3 is for the employer, not the employee. GitLab doesn't want demotivated/unhappy employees to stick around: they want them to actively look for other opportunities and leave. Sounds reasonable to me. Ironically if you paid a high salary but allowed people to work in a low COL area, this wouldn't be an issue... because the workers could aggressively save for retirement and semi-retire fairly early in their career.
- ozim 8y ago
  But you want unhappy employee to leave in 2-3 months or ASAP not sticking for couple of years to earn his FIRE. I would say after 6 months you get to know quirks of company up to that you might still be oblivious to bodies in wardrobe.
sytse 8y ago
That is exactly the reason. I updated the site https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/5833b6f0838524fe61659a5363a5f9672d4a6764 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/5833b6f0...

clubm8 8y ago

> Number 3 is pretty rediculous. I don't think I've ever seen another company try to claim that they are doing employees a favor by paying them less money than their peers. I've heard it used in the context of US government work. (They simply don't want people who are "in it for the money"). I don't know if that's based on studies or just a feeling.

sjg007 8y ago
Huh? For government jobs, people are in it for the healthcare and the pension.
- clubm8 8y ago
  > Huh? For government jobs, people are in it for the healthcare and the pension. Pensions don't exist anymore, you get a savings account (403b IIRC) w/ some % matching contrib

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

skrebbel 8y ago

He did not claim that. It's bad for the company, much more than for the employees. Unhappy employees who stay for financial reasons tend to negatively impact culture, quality and speed.

sytse 8y ago

As a company we don't want unhappy team members.

castlecrasher2 8y ago
Thanks for explaining your reasons. I've been in a golden handcuffs situation (clawback clause on a meager signon/moving bonus that I wouldn't be able to pay back) and I thought the same thing: why would they insist I stay on when I'm most definitely moving on and won't give my best in the remaining time?
- sytse 8y ago
  Thanks. Mind if I link to this comment from our handbook?

castlecrasher2 8y ago

Number 3 is one of the most reasonable on the list...it's strange you think someone in SF or NYC would ever sign on if they would be paid the exact same as someone in podunk, MT despite the CoL differences.

qaq 8y ago

I don't think you understand the motivation it's not a favor for employee it's a benefit to the company they don't want people who don't want to stick around purely because they pay highest wage for a given market.