The headline doesn't distinguish between remote work at companies that are remote-first vs. companies where remote is simply an afterthought or tolerated option. Promotions, raises, influence, etc., are no issue for remote workers in the former kind of company but certainly can be in the latter. Even though the article mentions Gitlab, a remote-first company, it doesn't tease out the distinction. Given market pressures, I expect the best remote workers to gravitate to companies that are remote-first, not just remote-available.
> Promotions, raises, influence, etc., are no issue for remote workers in the former kind of company but certainly can be in the latter.
FWIW, remote first companies are not automatically immune to these dynamics. A few examples of how they can still emerge:
* A group of folks that all live in the same city informally decided to start working from the same co-working space. A clique emerges.
* The CTO frequently travels to SF to talk to customers, regularly has lunch with a local employee who later gets promoted over better performing peers.
* Same but while the CEO goes to talk to investors.
* Same but the whole leadership team meets in the same airline hub city twice a quarter because it's easiest for everyone to get to. Employees in said airline hub city have better outcomes.
* You live on one coast, and your supervisor lives on another. People in the same timezone as your supervisor get more virtual face time.
There are definitely more opportunities for this dynamic when some people are remote and some are in a shared office. But I'd be wary of any organization that tells you this can't happen to them just because they're remote-first.
These dynamics can emerge in many ways, and if an organization doesn't realize/acknowledge this, there's a decent that they could fall prey to it, or may already be in progress.
