4 ms·

Why should the definition of "World Leader in Remote" be based on how they pay. Why can't it be based on the fact that they allow fully remote and pay reasonabl

Why should the definition of "World Leader in Remote" be based on how they pay. Why can't it be based on the fact that they allow fully remote and pay reasonably well for your area. Who decides the definition ?

rschachte 4y ago
Well that would be fine and all but there are a zillion tech companies that allow remote work that pay reasonably well. It doesn’t mean they’re a world leader in remote work. I worked at a small company that paid me a lot, gave me free stuff, perks etc. It doesn’t mean they’re a world leader in remote work. It just means they offer those things. The point is — they are not a world leader in remote work. They are a tech company with perks and this is good marketing for them to convince people like you otherwise.
- lucideer 4y ago
  > to convince people like you otherwise Nobody here is "convinced by their marketing" or has even mentioned they believe GLs claim. They're only asking for an explanation of your metric: that location based pay grades preclude leadership in remote working. I have yet to see any reasonable case for why this should be?
- chrisan 4y ago
  > They're only asking for an explanation of your metric: that location based pay grades preclude leadership in remote working. I have yet to see any reasonable case for why this should be? Not sure how I reply to the comment below by lucideer, I guess HN has a limit on children? Anywho, this is for him, not you :) Isn't the burden of proof on the one making the claim? I have yet to see a reasonable case for why they should be called a global leader when they treat their workers differently for the same output. Inequality is never going to be associated with a leader in my mind. Maybe from a c-level suit perspective they seem like leaders because they are getting away with making more money at the expense of the people building the product.
  - lucideer 4y ago
    > Isn't the burden of proof on the one making the claim? Yes. It is. > I have yet to see a reasonable case for why they should be called a global leader when they treat their workers differently for the same output. My point was no-one has made that claim (nor any similar positive claim - your rephrasing uses weasel words* to bias the interpretation) The claim being made is as follows: "paying workers geo-adjusted wages precludes a company from being a global leader in remote work". Noone has claimed that geo-adjusted wages do make them a leader, nor that GL even is a leader. Only one commenter has made a claim: that is that geo-adjusted wages preclude leadership. * Aside to explain my comment on weasel words: paying the same wage could be as easily interpreted "treating workers differently" given spending power is actually a product of wage / cost-of-living ratio; the value of money is geographically variable
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      > The claim being made is as follows: "paying workers geo-adjusted wages precludes a company from being a global leader in remote work". That's just a counter-claim; a denial of the original claim, which was Gitlab's "We are a global leader". With quite a lot of people saying"No, your behaviour is by definition not that of a leader", I'd say the burden of proof still lies squarely on Gitlab's shoulders: They made a rather bold claim, they get to show that it isn't BS.
- strokirk 4y ago
  Can you name a couple?

rschachte 4y ago

Well that would be fine and all but there are a zillion tech companies that allow remote work that pay reasonably well. It doesn’t mean they’re a world leader in remote work. I worked at a small company that paid me a lot, gave me free stuff, perks etc. It doesn’t mean they’re a world leader in remote work. It just means they offer those things. The point is — they are not a world leader in remote work. They are a tech company with perks and this is good marketing for them to convince people like you otherwise.

lucideer 4y ago
> to convince people like you otherwise Nobody here is "convinced by their marketing" or has even mentioned they believe GLs claim. They're only asking for an explanation of your metric: that location based pay grades preclude leadership in remote working. I have yet to see any reasonable case for why this should be?
chrisan 4y ago
> They're only asking for an explanation of your metric: that location based pay grades preclude leadership in remote working. I have yet to see any reasonable case for why this should be? Not sure how I reply to the comment below by lucideer, I guess HN has a limit on children? Anywho, this is for him, not you :) Isn't the burden of proof on the one making the claim? I have yet to see a reasonable case for why they should be called a global leader when they treat their workers differently for the same output. Inequality is never going to be associated with a leader in my mind. Maybe from a c-level suit perspective they seem like leaders because they are getting away with making more money at the expense of the people building the product.
- lucideer 4y ago
  > Isn't the burden of proof on the one making the claim? Yes. It is. > I have yet to see a reasonable case for why they should be called a global leader when they treat their workers differently for the same output. My point was no-one has made that claim (nor any similar positive claim - your rephrasing uses weasel words* to bias the interpretation) The claim being made is as follows: "paying workers geo-adjusted wages precludes a company from being a global leader in remote work". Noone has claimed that geo-adjusted wages do make them a leader, nor that GL even is a leader. Only one commenter has made a claim: that is that geo-adjusted wages preclude leadership. * Aside to explain my comment on weasel words: paying the same wage could be as easily interpreted "treating workers differently" given spending power is actually a product of wage / cost-of-living ratio; the value of money is geographically variable
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > The claim being made is as follows: "paying workers geo-adjusted wages precludes a company from being a global leader in remote work". That's just a counter-claim; a denial of the original claim, which was Gitlab's "We are a global leader". With quite a lot of people saying"No, your behaviour is by definition not that of a leader", I'd say the burden of proof still lies squarely on Gitlab's shoulders: They made a rather bold claim, they get to show that it isn't BS.
strokirk 4y ago
Can you name a couple?