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
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.
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.