3 ms·

Gitlab's insistence of adjusting remote pay based on geography (and paying below market in general) never sat well with me. You pay people based on the value th

Gitlab's insistence of adjusting remote pay based on geography (and paying below market in general) never sat well with me. You pay people based on the value they provided, period. It's ridiculous to think you would take a pay cut at your current remote job just because you move to a cheaper city. It does not surprise me one bit that where there was smoke, there's fire and a bunch of questionable behavior is going on behind the scenes.

jiveturkey 7y ago
I used to think that, but now I think it's completely fair and they way they present is completely honest. So I'm all for it, at least the way they have implemented it. As an employer in a capitalistic society, you do not pay people based on value provided. You pay based on a reverse dutch auction method. This ensures you are getting an employee at the lowest possible cost, which is your financial duty. Anything more is excess expense. This is why unions are so important: to band labor together such that there is no opportunity for a prisoner's dilemma situation, where things become a race to the bottom. It is the employer's duty to wring as much value out of an employee as possible, not to pay them for that value. Paying by value provided would introduce so much inequality it'd be awful. So anyway, paying market rate (or the identical fraction under/over everywhere) at any location is just like having an office in every city where you don't have a WFH policy at all and employees are competing against other local employees. So gitlab employees that have self-selected to live and work in the same location, wherever it may be, are bidding themselves against other employers in that location. gitlab gets the edge over local employers who presumably would require the employee to show up at the office, for those people that don't want to go in the office at all, for whatever reason. And therefore it's justified that gitlab pays less than market because they are only selecting for those employees that value the WFH as opposed to just "work close to home". And this justification is proven because they are actually able to employ people at "less than market". QED
- couchand 7y ago
  Your reasonable arguments are wholly undermined by the jackhole manner you end your comment.
  - jiveturkey 7y ago
    i think you're reading too much into it.
    - couchand 7y ago
      TBH I don't know what I was thinking...

jiveturkey 7y ago

I used to think that, but now I think it's completely fair and they way they present is completely honest. So I'm all for it, at least the way they have implemented it. As an employer in a capitalistic society, you do not pay people based on value provided. You pay based on a reverse dutch auction method. This ensures you are getting an employee at the lowest possible cost, which is your financial duty. Anything more is excess expense. This is why unions are so important: to band labor together such that there is no opportunity for a prisoner's dilemma situation, where things become a race to the bottom. It is the employer's duty to wring as much value out of an employee as possible, not to pay them for that value. Paying by value provided would introduce so much inequality it'd be awful. So anyway, paying market rate (or the identical fraction under/over everywhere) at any location is just like having an office in every city where you don't have a WFH policy at all and employees are competing against other local employees. So gitlab employees that have self-selected to live and work in the same location, wherever it may be, are bidding themselves against other employers in that location. gitlab gets the edge over local employers who presumably would require the employee to show up at the office, for those people that don't want to go in the office at all, for whatever reason. And therefore it's justified that gitlab pays less than market because they are only selecting for those employees that value the WFH as opposed to just "work close to home". And this justification is proven because they are actually able to employ people at "less than market". QED

couchand 7y ago
Your reasonable arguments are wholly undermined by the jackhole manner you end your comment.
- jiveturkey 7y ago
  i think you're reading too much into it.
  - couchand 7y ago
    TBH I don't know what I was thinking...