4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.