GitLab reviews

1. Unfair pay practices outside US. They have a concept of location factor which is not revised for years irrespective of how the market or economy of a particular country is performing. Yearly compensation appraisals are based on US standards which are extremely low for many other countries. 2. Some technology teams have too much pressure to deliver from product managers who are just running behind deadlines. 3. Bad expense policies for a remote company. They have cut a lot of corners here although they save a lot by being remote.

GitLab presents itself, very arrogantly, as being a much better place to work than anywhere else. They spend lots of time telling the world how everyone else has it wrong and they are better. They talk a lot about their business values and how they are the best remote company to work for. The problem is that GitLab is no better or worse than any other company, and I can assure you they have their problems. My experience was that they are incredibly condescending about it which, to me, made them look like they don’t know what they are talking about. They talk about having a bias for action which in my experience was a total fallacy. I had to ask the CEO for permission for anything I wanted to do. Strangely I couldn’t get anyone to make a decision in case they incur his wrath. I have been out of the company for a while now but achieved so much more in the first two weeks of my next place than all the time I was at GitLab. GitLab preaches about iterating quickly and making the smallest possible changes. The reality of this is every project they embark on is mired in around 40% refactoring work because previous projects suffered from such narrow product requirements they were having to rewrite entire sections of the application, from what I saw this meant they actually iterate incredibly slowly compared to how quickly they could deliver with properly thought out requirements. From what I saw the CEO is all about micromanagement - something else they prepare lectures on not being. No decision that could be made without his approval which means that you manage to get nothing done, then you are penalised for slow progress. The CEO is trying to be a mini-Musk - laughingly - and, from what I could see, has employed sycophants and yes-people to ensure he stays in position. My experience was that the worst of these are the Product team who looked like a collection of empire builders, stuck so hard to the CEO’s side they just never make a decision. I didn’t experience one competent Product Owner in the entirety of my time there. The company needs to actually live their values instead of being scared and propping up a kakistocracy.