I mean, the company is getting the same amount of value in either case.
No, they're not. Someone living near the main office (or if the company is fully remote just near the rest of the team), can attend face-to-face meetings with their team, they can be there for in-person client demos without needing prior notice and plane tickets, they're in the same time zone for remote meetings, if the team is international then people in different countries cost most for buying services and dealing with legal stuff..
Having staff live and work remotely does come with additional costs, and there are downsides, so it's not unreasonable to suggest the value isn't the same. When you're assessing the cost of staff you don't only look at the outputs.
Except Gitlab is fully remote, so these face to face meetings shouldn’t be happening.
If anything, creating this situation is actively creating a disadvantage to remote workers by not allowing them access to this privileged information. In my previous role, this was a real problem (and I was part of it!) where the remote team members didn’t have access to the in-depth information that those of us in the office did. That should have been on us to fix, but we didn’t and the company suffered as a result.
At Hotjar, like Gitlab, we’re 100% remote so we don’t have this 2-tier information system. There are costs, however ALL of these are good costs to have. They improve organisational resilience immensely and they’re things colocated offices should have but typically don’t until the time comes (usually after something bad happens).
Unlike Gitlab, we don’t split compensation based on location, it’s simply based on your role and seniority. It comes with some challenges but it makes me feel as valued as someone working from London or Munich, where the cost of living is higher.
This is a fair point, but theirs is a fully remote setup.
Honestly, if I get hired by Buffer while living in a low-cost area, I’d immediately move to a high-cost city to get better pay. Supposedly, HR shouldn’t bat an eye on that, since there’s the calculator? Or would they ask me to not move?
Would an engineer living out of a hostel in LA get paid more than one who has a mansion in Bali?
I know a few people in some companies who managed to move to cheaper locations, switch to remote and keep their salary.
Imagine a recruiter trying tl convince them to work for Gitlab but having to move back to a big city and WFH in a tiny condo or otherwise get paid 50% what they make now lol
It makes absolutely zero sense from demand/supply PoV and eventually they will have to catch up to the times.
Fully remote isn’t an exclusive perk anymore
Saying your hiring people anywhere in the world then telling the candidate the offer is shitty bc they don’t live in an hyper-inflated real-estate area is not just silly but insulting
No, they're not. Someone living near the main office (or if the company is fully remote just near the rest of the team), can attend face-to-face meetings with their team, they can be there for in-person client demos without needing prior notice and plane tickets, they're in the same time zone for remote meetings, if the team is international then people in different countries cost most for buying services and dealing with legal stuff..
Having staff live and work remotely does come with additional costs, and there are downsides, so it's not unreasonable to suggest the value isn't the same. When you're assessing the cost of staff you don't only look at the outputs.