1. 11
  1. 3
    1. 1

      Overworked, underpaid (and proud of it!), and stacked almost exclusively with deeply-PC/‘woke’ folk. I’ll, uh, pass.

      1. 2

        stacked almost exclusively with deeply-PC/‘woke’ folk. I’ll, uh, pass.

        I’m curious; how do you know this? Is it just from their “Diversity & Inclusion” mission statement?

        1. 2

          That, casual conversation with some of their older Ops folk, and a chat with Syd himself from ‘back in the day’.

          1. 10

            Thanks. It’s definitely a red flag, which is unfortunate because at least superficially, “social justice” sounds like a good thing. Unfortunately, there’s a large overlap between that and hateful tribalism. For example, from this job ad

            with the goal to change the IT industry from a white, bearded clump to something that’s a little less monochrome and have a few more x-chromosomes

            Being genuinely inclusive is good and important. Casting aspersions on an entire group of people (their own employees, no less!) for their genitalia and/or skin colour is never ok. For some reason this is given a pass when it comes from proponents of the correct political ideology.

            1. 1

              Wouldn’t with the goal to make the IT industry more diverse amount to the same? That’s what I understand from this quote, the only difference being that the quote clearly states the current state of affairs and what would make it more diverse.

              1. 6

                I find it totally offensive for myself or any of my peers to be described as a “white, bearded clump”.

              2. 1

                I am curious to understand why you immediately redflagged this after law’s statement and rejected the massive evidence (https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Overview/Working-at-GitLab-EI_IE1296544.11,17.htm) – at least compared to a one-line statement – that Gitlab is, at the very least, a nice place to work in.

                1. 2

                  Good question. I think it’s because it’s far riskier for one’s own political capital or reputation to say something critical, and I think this is especially true of criticising political correctness. Nobody ever got fired for saying “oh yeah, it’s great. I am happy, everyone is happy.”

                  Or perhaps looking at it another way: a “woke” culture in a company is a good thing to some people. There are many people who are that flavour of political extremist, and would feel welcome among their own. The original observation was indeed “this is a woke company”, and not “this is a bad company.”

                  Glassdoor are not letting me read reviews without an account, but if the company were an echo chamber (likely, since I don’t believe the diversity movement is interested in diversity of opinion), then what’s to correct for all the positive reviews coming from people who 1. want to save their own skin, and/or 2. are quite comfortable with political correctness?

                  1. 2

                    How is law risking anything by saying what he said – or anything for that matter – under a nickname?

                    1. 2

                      I don’t know about this person specifically, but it’s not uncommon to be able to deduce who a person is by combing through their post history, and possibly cross-referencing it against content they’ve authored in other online communities.

                      1. 3

                        I don’t won’t to be impolite by insisting (sorry if I am) but you actually trusted this person’s single-line statement rather than publicly available, verified, anonymous feedback.

                        1. 3

                          Don’t worry, I don’t think you’ve been impolite. It’s totally fair to ask.

                          You are right, I drew a likely (in my mind) conclusion from a single source over an entire repository of reviews. I’ve presented my justification for this; perhaps it’s not entirely legitimate and it will be based on some of my own experiences and biases.

                          I wouldn’t say I “trust” the above anecdote comprehensively, but it’s certainly a signal. I could see a motive for someone to say some company is “bad”, but I don’t understand why someone would describe a company’s culture as “woke” if it isn’t.

          2. 1

            Dodged a bullet, thanks.

            1. 1

              I was shocked to see how much less I’d make at Gitlab - my pay would be literally half what it is right now. They index their remote pay to cost of living wher eyou live, and in the United States it’s indexed for an entire state. In my home state, cost of living varies WIDELY based on what part of the state you are in, and this acted much to my detriment.

              I understand and appreciate the difficulty of figuring out what to pay remote workers in a global workforce, but I definitely think Gitlab hasn’t solved it yet. I’m also grateful their salary transparency after the introductory interview meant that we weren’t wasting each others’ time - I wish more companies did this.

          3. 2

            My eyes cannot handle the page design well. The headings are too thin and light-colored, whereas the technology tags are too heavy-weight. I could understand the idea that you want to put more emphasis on the technology than on the title, but for this approach there are just too many technology tags with each position. I.e., there are just too many heavy-weight tags, so I do not know what to focus on.