On 11/22/2010 1:08 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/22/2010 11:31:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, > wikipe...@frontier.com writes: >> On 11/22/2010 10:47 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >>> In a message dated 11/22/2010 10:33:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, >>> rkald...@wikimedia.org writes: >>>> * I believe "Salary and other compensation" includes payment to >>>> contractors, of which we currently have about 20-30 (which aren't >>>> counted as employees).>> >>> Why so many, and contractors generally make much more than employees. >>> Why not get rid of some of those and hire more employees? >>> I know of a lot of people looking for work. >> And I know of some positions they're welcome to apply for if they have >> suitable qualifications: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings >> >> Aside from that, staffing decisions are not simply something that gets >> flipped around at will. In some cases, Wikimedia contractors have that >> status because it would be prohibitively difficult to treat them as >> employees (some staff located abroad, for example). Others are hired for >> specific time-limited projects which it makes more sense to do on a >> contract basis (Eugene Eric Kim for the strategy project, for instance). >> >> Also, the notion that contractors "generally make much more than >> employees" seems to ignore the fact that this bucket is labeled "Salary >> *and other compensation* " (meaning things such as health or retirement >> benefits). > How does 20-30 contractors equate to the 10 open positions listed? It > seems short to me. I didn't suggest that any of the openings are being used to replace contractors, that was just a response to the comment that you know a lot of people who might be interested in such openings. > I don't see what logic there is in stating that having an employee abroad > is "prohibitively difficult" but it's not so if they are a contractor. That > makes no sense to me. Many countries tie aspects of their social safety net into employer-employee relationships through various regulations, taxation, and reporting obligations. These systems often differ dramatically between jurisdictions, making it quite burdensome to comply with more than one at a time. Not to mention that a jurisdiction may not accept such a relationship unless both parties are based there, meaning that the foundation would have to set up local subsidiaries in order to make non-US contractors employees. (Incidentally, I apologize to all for my earlier reference to staff working "abroad" without giving geographic context or simply using better terminology.) At which point, it doesn't really make sense to duplicate the overhead already being assumed by the chapters, some of which have begun hiring staff themselves. Shifting people to chapter employment might address some cases, but it's still a different situation from working directly for the Wikimedia Foundation. > If WMF is truly adding wages paid to contractors into the "Salary and other > compensation" bucket I don't think this is G.A.A.P. > Wages paid to contractors should not be treated the same as salary paid to > employees for the purpose of annual reports like this. That is, they should > not be lumped together in this sort of bucket. I thought your complaint was that contractors are being paid too much, not that they are being counted in the wrong place. They aren't - as a member of the audit committee, I have full confidence that the Wikimedia Foundation's tax reports are using the appropriate categories for expenses. Ryan may have been in error about whether payments to contractors were included in the figure quoted (he doesn't work in accounting). That doesn't change the point that the "and other compensation" includes rather significant expenses beyond simply base salary, which is why hiring contractors involves a different compensation structure.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
