This is an interesting discussion. As part of a movement, where individuals
don't feel comfortable disclosing even their real names or identities, what
one earns, would be something very personal.
I would like to reiterate the question about the purpose of this disclosure.
Apart from all the cultural issues and the legal requirement for disclosing
salaries, if the figures are repeatedly disclosed by chapters, it would
create an expectation among future employees. Some implications of these
open disclosures (For EU, non-EU chapters and Movement wide)-
* If certain European chapters start disclosing the figures of their
employees publicly, won't it create perception of what the other chapter
should pay? This would be something similar to Anti-trust. A new chapter
might have to abide by that standard set by other chapter, the internal
metrics about what sort of funding a chapter gets, what benefits they offer
aside, which might be limited internally; the outside perception would be
set.
* The second implication would be Wage parity in Non-EU chapters. Wages
within EU are relatively within a range, by going by the assumption that
chapter don't deviate much from the average of their own country, would
this put a burden on Non-EU chapters? They are essentially part of the same
movement, and if dependent on a grant from WMF, not much different in this
case.
* Their would be without doubt great amount of wage parity within the
movement. I'm not sure if that high amount of transparency would be helpful
for anyone. For example, WMF undertook an effort last year to promote
professionalization among chapters, WMF follows its own metric and
presumably California law when it comes to Salary and wage dispensation,
but when WMF pays a chapter, to hire a staff, is their some internal set of
standards that it expects chapters to comply with? or are they free to set
them as they see fit. If disclosures have to be set, apart from the legal
requirement, it should be a top-down approach to internal standards.
Delphine's suggestion about a salary grid is great, but I believe that if
once set, this grid would be something more chapters would be expected to
abide by, or come close to. This might be a good or a bad thing depending
on how you look at it.
Regards
Theo
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>wrote;wrote:
I think that wage transparency is very much a cultural
thing. For
instance, if you plug my job title and employer into Google, you will get a
figure back which is more or less what I actually earn. I don't regard
this as a problem at all, and it's pretty much regarded as the way things
are in Australia (where things like negotiating a salary are reserved to
very high level positions or American companies setting up a local branch
office).
The legal safeguards seem to be in place in France (disclosure of highest
salaries) to ensure that noone is paid above what
the organisation can and
should afford, so why the need for total transparency?
Let me turn that one around, and ask, what is the justification for *not *having
total transparency? I would think that starting with 100% transparency and
then selectively blocking out pieces of information only after due
consideration is the way to go, especially if the primary source of funding
is donations being made by the general public. If you start from the other
position, and only share information if you are legally required to or if
it paints you in a favourable light, well, that's not really *meaningful
*transparency
in my book.
Cheers,
Craig
On 5 February 2012 19:09, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Delphine Ménard, 05/02/2012 09:11:
This said, I believe that transparency can take
many forms. In this
case, I would suggest that an option might be putting in place a solid
salary grid (grille salariale), which gives a range of what salary can
be expected for what position (the grid can be "broad" enough so that
people don't feel their salary has been disclosed). Cultural and local
practices need to be taken into consideration of course (as Stu pointed
out, align with the local job market to some extent).
A grid may also have the important effect of telling people who are
joining the organisation what kind of progress they can expect within
it, which I find is both reassuring and motivating for employees. It
also helps the management to think about what structure to give the
organisation. Wikimedia Deutschland published not too long ago a plan
for hiring and staff which, if it is just a "plan" also brought up the
question of "how do we want to organize in the future?" and that was, I
think, extremely helpful, as it structured the way employees see their
job and future within the organisation.
I think this is a good approach, but there's room for complete
disclosure of
wages in it too, just with a bit more work for
interested people, which
is
good.
For instance, in my university, which has to follow state law and has
some
autonomy, managers' wages are very public,
but all the others are in
4×~10
classes for staff plus 3×~20 classes for prof.,
the class one belongs to
is
very clear (not for profs, actually) and there
are tables in the website
which tell you exactly what each class costs/takes (this is a local
decision). Nobody complains about it, actually there are problems only
when
people don't find the data because
they're stupid and complain randomly
about wages, but then it's easy to tell them that it's just their fault.
The
other problem are those few millions euros which
aren't regulated by
those
classes; internal clarity is the first priority.
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Treasurers mailing list
Treasurers(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
_______________________________________________
Treasurers mailing list
Treasurers(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers