I open this discussion as this issue arise for WMFr and its professionalization, and I believe same for others chapters. I would like to know if the foundation or others chapters who have recruited or will do it have define a wage policy and have decide a public transparency for this wages.
Wikimedia France had an employee during less than one year before we separated through a negociation.It's salary was not published but easy to find in our accounts as he was our only employee. We then recruited within a short period, 3 employees with a permanent contract and one with fixed-term contract in charge of the fundraising. So it raised the question of wage policy, equity between employees, and transparency of wages. Even more because some of this employees are former WMFr volunteers.
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market. If a charities or NGOs received more than 50 000 € of public money (from public administration, cities, etc.), the organization has to disclose it's more 3 highest wages, post and name of the post-holder. But most of the time, this disclosure is not easy to find for an ordinary donator as you should do where to find it, most of the time in an annex, lost in the middle of accountings documents.
We have discussions on this point on WMFr board, and personaly I'm a for the higher wages transparancy we can, for our members and donators, despite cultural curbs.
Thierry
I'm all for as much transparency as possible! The only possible drawback I can see is that some people have an (entirely justifiable, in some situations) preference not to have their salary plastered all over the Internet. This in turn might make them less than eager to apply for jobs with a chapter, which in turn means that the chapter might not get the absolute best person for the job.
Personally though, I think that tradeoff is worth it, at least for senior staff.
Cheers, Craig
On 4 February 2012 04:38, Thierry Coudray thierry.coudray@wikimedia.frwrote:
I open this discussion as this issue arise for WMFr and its professionalization, and I believe same for others chapters. I would like to know if the foundation or others chapters who have recruited or will do it have define a wage policy and have decide a public transparency for this wages.
Wikimedia France had an employee during less than one year before we separated through a negociation.It's salary was not published but easy to find in our accounts as he was our only employee. We then recruited within a short period, 3 employees with a permanent contract and one with fixed-term contract in charge of the fundraising. So it raised the question of wage policy, equity between employees, and transparency of wages. Even more because some of this employees are former WMFr volunteers.
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizations because in France, it's culturally not easy to speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market. If a charities or NGOs received more than 50 000 € of public money (from public administration, cities, etc.), the organization has to disclose it's more 3 highest wages, post and name of the post-holder. But most of the time, this disclosure is not easy to find for an ordinary donator as you should do where to find it, most of the time in an annex, lost in the middle of accountings documents.
We have discussions on this point on WMFr board, and personaly I'm a for the higher wages transparancy we can, for our members and donators, despite cultural curbs.
Thierry
-- Thierry Coudray Administrateur - Trésorier Wikimédia France http://www.wikimedia.fr/ Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
I am of a different view. I think that in general, individual salaries should be private. The whole purpose of having a board of directors (elected by the members) is to handle such details in a responsible manner. It is true that some trolls / conspiracy theorists will darkly hint that there is something wrong with this, but it is standard practice for organizations.
I do agree with Craig, though, that for senior staff there is a tradeoff. And in many jurisdictions (US and France for example), the most highly paid few employees must have their salaries public by law. And that can be a good practice.
But for chapters that will end up having 10+ employees, including a receptionist, accountant, public relations person, etc., there is no good reason to have everyone's salary public.
This may vary culturally as well, so local public expectations matter.
On 2/3/12 4:20 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
I'm all for as much transparency as possible! The only possible drawback I can see is that some people have an (entirely justifiable, in some situations) preference not to have their salary plastered all over the Internet. This in turn might make them less than eager to apply for jobs with a chapter, which in turn means that the chapter might not get the absolute best person for the job.
Personally though, I think that tradeoff is worth it, at least for senior staff.
Cheers, Craig
On 4 February 2012 04:38, Thierry Coudray <thierry.coudray@wikimedia.fr mailto:thierry.coudray@wikimedia.fr> wrote:
I open this discussion as this issue arise for WMFr and its professionalization, and I believe same for others chapters. I would like to know if the foundation or others chapters who have recruited or will do it have define a wage policy and have decide a public transparency for this wages. Wikimedia France had an employee during less than one year before we separated through a negociation.It's salary was not published but easy to find in our accounts as he was our only employee. We then recruited within a short period, 3 employees with a permanent contract and one with fixed-term contractin charge of the fundraising. So it raised the question of wage policy, equity between employees, and transparency of wages. Even more because some of this employees are former WMFr volunteers. In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market. If a charities or NGOs received more than 50 000 € of public money (from public administration, cities, etc.), the organization has to disclose it's more 3 highest wages, post and name of the post-holder. But most of the time, this disclosure is not easy to find for an ordinary donator as you should do where to find it, most of the time in an annex, lost in the middle of accountings documents. We have discussions on this point on WMFr board, and personaly I'm a for the higher wages transparancy we can, for our members and donators, despite cultural curbs. Thierry -- Thierry Coudray Administrateur - Trésorier Wikimédia France <http://www.wikimedia.fr/> Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 <tel:06.82.85.84.40> http://blog.wikimedia.fr/ _______________________________________________ Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
On the disclosure question, i totally agree with Jimmy. Compensation information is highly private and personal. I never, ever disclose such information unless unambiguously required to do so by a legal regulation. At the WMF, we're unambiguously required to disclose in our tax filings the compensation of the top 5 employees with compensation greater than $150k / year according to a very very carefully designed standard formula that captures base salary, bonus, perquisites, etc. See page 37 of our most recent tax filing at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1c/WMF_2009_2010_Form_990... which includes detail on Sue's compensation (the only employee in that year who was paid more than $150k).
On Thierry's broader question, at the WMF we follow some best practices. We have a separate HR Committee of the Board which is responsible for reviewing compensation and setting compensation philosophy (it reports annually to the full board). That Committee commissions a study from an independent compensation consultant who reviews the compensation of top employees and sets broader compensation bands for other executives. We look for comparables to the local non-profit community. We also compete in the San Francisco area for the technical talent that makes up more than half of the paid staff at the Foundation. So we consider local hiring practices (and compensation levels) in the local technical community as additional data points.
Does that help?
-s
On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am of a different view. I think that in general, individual salaries should be private. The whole purpose of having a board of directors (elected by the members) is to handle such details in a responsible manner. It is true that some trolls / conspiracy theorists will darkly hint that there is something wrong with this, but it is standard practice for organizations.
I do agree with Craig, though, that for senior staff there is a tradeoff. And in many jurisdictions (US and France for example), the most highly paid few employees must have their salaries public by law. And that can be a good practice.
But for chapters that will end up having 10+ employees, including a receptionist, accountant, public relations person, etc., there is no good reason to have everyone's salary public.
This may vary culturally as well, so local public expectations matter.
On 2/3/12 4:20 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
I'm all for as much transparency as possible! The only possible drawback I can see is that some people have an (entirely justifiable, in some situations) preference not to have their salary plastered all over the Internet. This in turn might make them less than eager to apply for jobs with a chapter, which in turn means that the chapter might not get the absolute best person for the job.
Personally though, I think that tradeoff is worth it, at least for senior staff.
Cheers, Craig
On 4 February 2012 04:38, Thierry Coudray <thierry.coudray@wikimedia.fr mailto:thierry.coudray@wikimedia.fr> wrote:
I open this discussion as this issue arise for WMFr and its professionalization, and I believe same for others chapters. I would like to know if the foundation or others chapters who have recruited or will do it have define a wage policy and have decide a public transparency for this wages.
Wikimedia France had an employee during less than one year before we separated through a negociation.It's salary was not published but easy to find in our accounts as he was our only employee. We then recruited within a short period, 3 employees with a permanent contract and one with fixed-term contractin charge of the fundraising. So it raised the question of wage policy, equity between employees, and transparency of wages. Even more because some of this employees are former WMFr volunteers.
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market. If a charities or NGOs received more than 50 000 € of public money (from public administration, cities, etc.), the organization has to disclose it's more 3 highest wages, post and name of the post-holder. But most of the time, this disclosure is not easy to find for an ordinary donator as you should do where to find it, most of the time in an annex, lost in the middle of accountings documents.
We have discussions on this point on WMFr board, and personaly I'm a for the higher wages transparancy we can, for our members and donators, despite cultural curbs.
Thierry
-- Thierry Coudray Administrateur - Trésorier Wikimédia France http://www.wikimedia.fr/ Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 tel:06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Salut Thierry,
Le 03/02/2012 19:38, Thierry Coudray a écrit :
I open this discussion as this issue arise for WMFr and its professionalization, and I believe same for others chapters. I would like to know if the foundation or others chapters who have recruited or will do it have define a wage policy and have decide a public transparency for this wages.
Wikimedia France had an employee during less than one year before we separated through a negociation.It's salary was not published but easy to find in our accounts as he was our only employee. We then recruited within a short period, 3 employees with a permanent contract and one with fixed-term contractin charge of the fundraising. So it raised the question of wage policy, equity between employees, and transparency of wages. Even more because some of this employees are former WMFr volunteers.
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market. If a charities or NGOs received more than 50 000 € of public money (from public administration, cities, etc.), the organization has to disclose it's more 3 highest wages, post and name of the post-holder. But most of the time, this disclosure is not easy to find for an ordinary donator as you should do where to find it, most of the time in an annex, lost in the middle of accountings documents.
We have discussions on this point on WMFr board, and personaly I'm a for the higher wages transparancy we can, for our members and donators, despite cultural curbs.
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? It's a real question, I always have a hard time when we try to apply the "Recent changes, everyone can see everything" policy to our real life organisations, so I'm trying to understand what you would like to achieve with maximum transparency. Or did I not understand you and you meant just "transparency for the higher wages?".
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.
Cheers,
Delphine
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
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Craig Franklin, 05/02/2012 10:17:
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.
Total transparency can be meaningless too. You can get (very close to) total transparency with a system like Delphine's, but you force people to work and think more to get the specific information. This is not an exercise in masochism, rather a way to focus on the way the system works (or not): you are forced to study and understand it before you get the specific piece of information. If the criteria to decide wages aren't clear or don't exist, then /this/ is something one can rightfully complain about.
Nemo
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@halonetwork.netwrote:
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Le 05/02/2012 11:14, Theo10011 a écrit :
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.
I'm sorry, I just can't subscribe to the idea that people in Berlin expect to be paid on a par level with people in San Francisco (or Paris for that matter) or people in Kenya expect to get the same salary as those in the UK, even for the same position. People are not that stupid, and they do know that differences exist from country to country. I don't see a grid (or full disclosure for that matter) as a problem from chapter to chapter, as long as it makes sense within a local job market. I see absolutely no "competition" in having salaries public or half public here, I find you're making up a problem that just does not exist.
The only thing that might come to be is the fact that a Wikimedia organisation might feel compelled to make things (more) public if another does it.
Cheers,
Delphine
2012/2/5 Delphine Ménard delphine.menard@wikimedia.de
Le 05/02/2012 11:14, Theo10011 a écrit :
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.
I'm sorry, I just can't subscribe to the idea that people in Berlin expect to be paid on a par level with people in San Francisco (or Paris for that matter) or people in Kenya expect to get the same salary as those in the UK, even for the same position. People are not that stupid, and they do know that differences exist from country to country. I don't see a grid (or full disclosure for that matter) as a problem from chapter to chapter, as long as it makes sense within a local job market. I see absolutely no "competition" in having salaries public or half public here, I find you're making up a problem that just does not exist.
Is it really so inconceivable to think, there might be comparisons between a job in Berlin for WMDE and one in London for WMUK, for the same position? They are both affluent european chapters, with relatively comparable revenues, located in countries with comparable averages for salaries. While people might not be that stupid to see difference from country to country, average european salaries for a sector or position, do tend to be within a range. I never referred to "competition", just that the grid once set and used, might become more prevalent. It might be completely innocuous, I don't think I called it a problem either.
Regards Theo
Hello everyone,
I believe wage policy is in the center of focus for any non-profit organization regarding transparency issue. Because of the non-profit status, mass people, critics as well as the the governing authorities always tend to raise questions about how much the organization's staffs are paid. I am from Bangladesh where Many NGO's are operating in and this types of questions are often asked when any such issue arises.
So, transparency of wage structure/wage policy of a chapter is an issue that needs serious attention. Ensuring optimum transparency and at the same time, maintaining confidentiality of personal salary is a very delicate task. Having said that, I believe chapters may use a pay scale system that is widely used in my country (including the government as well as many NGOs). This pay scale system is quite similar to the salary grid proposed by Delphine. In pay scale, the jobs are divided into different levels with defined salary structure for respective job levels (which includes starting basic salary along with yearly increment & maximum no. of years in each level and ratios of other benefits). I would like to present an example to explain the whole thing. Say we have 3 job levels in a an organization & the pay scale may be presented as follows:
Level-1: 15000-900X4-18600 Level-2: 13750-700X4-16550 Level-3: 11000-600X6-14600
Other benefits such as house rent, medical allowance may be defined as a % of the basic pay or as a fixed amount.
If we explain level 3 pay scale, the starting salary of the level would be 11,000/- and yearly increment would be 600/-. This yearly increment would continue for the next 6 years if the recipient does not get a promotion with in this 6 year time frame. After 6 years, promotion of the employee would be due.
Lot many modifications can be done with this pay scale system. However, it can be a good choice to ensure transparency of salary and at the same time maintain some sort of confidentiality of individual salaries.
Hope to see more such options as the discussion progresses.
Regards
Ali Haidar Khan (tonmoy) Wikimedia Bangladesh
On 05.02.2012 10:17, Craig Franklin wrote:
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.
This is an interesting position that I've seen expressed a few times now, especially within the Wikimedia universe. But let me ask: why do you think that "starting with 100% transparency" would be appropriate? This isn't a rhetorical question--I'm actually interested in knowing.
I'm happy to share my own thoughts on this but first would like to read your argument.
Best regards,
Sebastian Moleski President ------------------------------------- Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Eisenacher Straße 2 10777 Berlin
Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Hi Thierry,
On 03.02.2012 19:38, Thierry Coudray wrote:
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market.
I can't speak much for France but I'd like to share some of the WMDE perspective. I hope it's useful to you or anyone else who is considering hiring chapter staff.
When Wikimedia Deutschland started hiring actively recruiting employees in 2008, we had a similar discussion regarding how we want to go about setting and disclosing wages. As a preface, probably similarly to France, talking about one's own wage is someewhat of a taboo in Germany. While there are pay scales available for the public sector, which allow you to infer what wage range a particular position is paid, no such disclosure is typically available for the private sector, whether for- or non-profit. Exceptions are heavily unionized industries where pay scales are negotiated at a very high and broad level.
That being said, the most important goal for us when setting hiring practices was that we wanted to get staff that would be most effective. Effectiveness typically requires competence and motivation, the attributes that almost any other employer also looks for. With that goal in mind, there were a number of factors to consider:
* The German workforce is shrinking. Our unemployment rate has been steadily decreasing for years and is now close to levels not seen since the 1980s. Birth rates have been rather low in Germany for decades meaning less and less people are entering the job market. At the same time, record numbers of people are retiring and immigration is close to non-existent. That means that more and more employers are competing for less and less candidates.
* The kind of work we do and the skills associated with that work are rare to find. Many of the problems we are trying to tackle are new in the sense that nobody else before us has attempted or succeeded in them. Nobody knows, for example, how to get more people to engage in collaboratively producing an encyclopedia, text books, etc. online. Consider how many attempts WMDE, the Foundation, and others have made in trying to recruit new editors, and how few of those have succeeded. Similarly, nobody really knows how to reform a public education system to move towards utilizing free knowledge resources rather than proprietary printed works. Similarly, nobody really knows how to influence an online community to become more effective, more self-sustaining, and more self-regenerating. The "newness" of many of the challenges we are trying to tackle means we need people who are highly creative, open to take risks, and able to deal with highly complex scenarios.
* There are a number of well-funded organizations looking for the same kind of people. Many of the problems we're trying to solve are also problems other organizations like Google, Facebook, numerous startups, and some traditional companies interested in diversifying are trying to solve. It is clear that we cannot compete on pay with many of them. That doesn't mean that we can ignore their rates because, in the end, our staff has to be able to pay rent, cover their cost of living, and lead a satisfying life just as much as theirs does.
* We are not like the public sector. People that choose to work for the government (or quasi-governmental entities) tend to accept lower than market rates because they get other benefits such as job security, generous pension plans, and a high sense of stability in return. We can't really offer those things. Our situation is much more like a startup than a provider of public services. There's today no telling what Wikimedia Deutschland will look 2 much less 5 or 10 years from now--or if it will even exist anymore. That's very different from a public service provider like a school or some administrative agency, which probably won't change all that much in that kind of timeframe.
Taking these factors into account meant that, in general, we would have orient ourselves more along actual market rates rather than public sector pay scales, discounted by a "mission factor" which takes into account that we also wanted to find staff that personally identifies with our mission and wants to work for us to a large portion because of that. Trying to get the best people for each job also means that there's typically not a set pay scale for each position--rather wages and benefits are negotiated one-on-one. As a result, two project managers with different experience, qualifications, subject areas, and negotiation skills, for example, will usually not get paid the same amount.
If we had opted to go the route of "full transparency" instead, we would have severely diminished our ability to negotiate individually, significantly impairing our ability to hire the best staff. We would, in our judgment, have appeared much less attractive to candidates who might also consider working for other employers that don't publicly disclose their pay scales. The German job market is highly competitive with unemployment rates for years steadily decreasing to levels not seen since the late 1980s. It doesn't look like this is going to move in the opposite direction anytime soon with a lot of low birth-rate generations entering the workforce, high number of people retiring, and immigration at rather insignificant levels.
Best regards,
Sebastian Moleski President ------------------------------------- Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Eisenacher Straße 2 10777 Berlin
Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Please ignore my prior post. I hit send to early. ****************
Hi Thierry,
On 03.02.2012 19:38, Thierry Coudray wrote:
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market.
I can't speak much for France but I'd like to share some of the WMDE perspective. I hope it's useful to you or anyone else who is considering hiring chapter staff.
When Wikimedia Deutschland started actively recruiting employees in 2008, we had a similar discussion regarding how we want to go about setting and disclosing wages. As a preface, probably similarly to France, talking about one's own wage is somewhat taboo in Germany. While there are pay scales available for the public sector, which allow you to infer what wage range a particular position is paid, no such disclosure is typically available for the private sector, whether for- or non-profit. Exceptions are heavily unionized industries where pay scales are negotiated at a very high and broad level. What we do doesn't really fall into those though.
That being said, the most important goal for us when setting hiring practices was that we wanted to get staff that would be most effective. Effectiveness typically requires competence and motivation, the attributes that almost any other employer also looks for. With that goal in mind, there were a number of factors to consider:
* The German workforce is shrinking. Our unemployment rate has been steadily decreasing for years and is now close to levels not seen since the 1980s. Birth rates have been rather low in Germany for decades meaning less and less people are entering the job market. At the same time, record numbers of people are retiring and immigration is close to non-existent. That means that more and more employers are competing for less and less candidates.
* The kind of work we do and the skills associated with that work are rare to find. Many of the problems we are trying to tackle are new in the sense that nobody else before us has attempted or succeeded in them. Nobody knows, for example, how to get more people to engage in collaboratively producing an encyclopedia, text books, etc. online. Consider how many attempts WMDE, the Foundation, and others have made in trying to recruit new editors, and how few of those have succeeded. Similarly, nobody really knows how to reform a public education system to move towards utilizing free knowledge resources rather than proprietary printed works. Similarly, nobody really knows how to influence an online community to become more effective, more self-sustaining, and more self-regenerating. The "newness" of many of the challenges we are trying to tackle means we need people who are highly creative, open to take risks, and able to deal with highly complex scenarios.
* There are a number of well-funded organizations looking for the same kind of people. Many of the problems we're trying to solve are also problems other organizations like Google, Facebook, numerous startups, and some traditional companies interested in diversifying are trying to solve. It is clear that we cannot compete on pay with many of them. That doesn't mean that we can ignore their rates because, in the end, our staff has to be able to pay rent, cover their cost of living, and lead a satisfying life just as much as theirs does.
* We are not like the public sector. People that choose to work for the government (or quasi-governmental entities) tend to accept lower than market rates because they get other benefits such as job security, generous pension plans, and a high sense of stability in return. We can't really offer those things. Our situation is much more like a startup than a provider of public services. There's today no telling what Wikimedia Deutschland will look 2 much less 5 or 10 years from now--or if it will even exist anymore. That's very different from a public service provider like a school or some administrative agency, which probably won't change all that much in that kind of timeframe.
Taking these factors into account meant that, in general, we would have to orient ourselves more along actual market rates rather than public sector pay scales. We discount the market comparison by a "mission factor" which takes into account that we also wanted to find staff that personally identifies with our mission and wants to work for us to a large portion because of that. Trying to get the best people for each job also means that there's typically not a set pay scale for each position--rather wages and benefits are negotiated one-on-one. As a result, two project managers with different experience, qualifications, subject areas, and negotiation skills, for example, will usually not get paid the same amount.
If we had opted to go the route of "full transparency" instead, we would have severely diminished our ability to negotiate individually, significantly impairing our ability to hire the best staff. We would, in our judgment, have appeared much less attractive to candidates who might also consider working for other employers that don't publicly disclose their pay scales.
Best regards,
Sebastian Moleski President ------------------------------------- Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Eisenacher Straße 2 10777 Berlin
Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
I think Sebastian speaks with a lot of wisdom here.
On 2/6/12 1:57 AM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
Please ignore my prior post. I hit send to early.
Hi Thierry,
On 03.02.2012 19:38, Thierry Coudray wrote:
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market.
I can't speak much for France but I'd like to share some of the WMDE perspective. I hope it's useful to you or anyone else who is considering hiring chapter staff.
When Wikimedia Deutschland started actively recruiting employees in 2008, we had a similar discussion regarding how we want to go about setting and disclosing wages. As a preface, probably similarly to France, talking about one's own wage is somewhat taboo in Germany. While there are pay scales available for the public sector, which allow you to infer what wage range a particular position is paid, no such disclosure is typically available for the private sector, whether for- or non-profit. Exceptions are heavily unionized industries where pay scales are negotiated at a very high and broad level. What we do doesn't really fall into those though.
That being said, the most important goal for us when setting hiring practices was that we wanted to get staff that would be most effective. Effectiveness typically requires competence and motivation, the attributes that almost any other employer also looks for. With that goal in mind, there were a number of factors to consider:
- The German workforce is shrinking. Our unemployment rate has been
steadily decreasing for years and is now close to levels not seen since the 1980s. Birth rates have been rather low in Germany for decades meaning less and less people are entering the job market. At the same time, record numbers of people are retiring and immigration is close to non-existent. That means that more and more employers are competing for less and less candidates.
- The kind of work we do and the skills associated with that work are
rare to find. Many of the problems we are trying to tackle are new in the sense that nobody else before us has attempted or succeeded in them. Nobody knows, for example, how to get more people to engage in collaboratively producing an encyclopedia, text books, etc. online. Consider how many attempts WMDE, the Foundation, and others have made in trying to recruit new editors, and how few of those have succeeded. Similarly, nobody really knows how to reform a public education system to move towards utilizing free knowledge resources rather than proprietary printed works. Similarly, nobody really knows how to influence an online community to become more effective, more self-sustaining, and more self-regenerating. The "newness" of many of the challenges we are trying to tackle means we need people who are highly creative, open to take risks, and able to deal with highly complex scenarios.
- There are a number of well-funded organizations looking for the same
kind of people. Many of the problems we're trying to solve are also problems other organizations like Google, Facebook, numerous startups, and some traditional companies interested in diversifying are trying to solve. It is clear that we cannot compete on pay with many of them. That doesn't mean that we can ignore their rates because, in the end, our staff has to be able to pay rent, cover their cost of living, and lead a satisfying life just as much as theirs does.
- We are not like the public sector. People that choose to work for the
government (or quasi-governmental entities) tend to accept lower than market rates because they get other benefits such as job security, generous pension plans, and a high sense of stability in return. We can't really offer those things. Our situation is much more like a startup than a provider of public services. There's today no telling what Wikimedia Deutschland will look 2 much less 5 or 10 years from now--or if it will even exist anymore. That's very different from a public service provider like a school or some administrative agency, which probably won't change all that much in that kind of timeframe.
Taking these factors into account meant that, in general, we would have to orient ourselves more along actual market rates rather than public sector pay scales. We discount the market comparison by a "mission factor" which takes into account that we also wanted to find staff that personally identifies with our mission and wants to work for us to a large portion because of that. Trying to get the best people for each job also means that there's typically not a set pay scale for each position--rather wages and benefits are negotiated one-on-one. As a result, two project managers with different experience, qualifications, subject areas, and negotiation skills, for example, will usually not get paid the same amount.
If we had opted to go the route of "full transparency" instead, we would have severely diminished our ability to negotiate individually, significantly impairing our ability to hire the best staff. We would, in our judgment, have appeared much less attractive to candidates who might also consider working for other employers that don't publicly disclose their pay scales.
Best regards,
Sebastian Moleski President
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Eisenacher Straße 2 10777 Berlin
Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Thank you Sebastian! Your response was very interesting and useful for me.
Samat
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:57, Sebastian Moleski < sebastian.moleski@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Please ignore my prior post. I hit send to early.
Hi Thierry,
On 03.02.2012 19:38, Thierry Coudray wrote:
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to
speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market.
I can't speak much for France but I'd like to share some of the WMDE perspective. I hope it's useful to you or anyone else who is considering hiring chapter staff.
When Wikimedia Deutschland started actively recruiting employees in 2008, we had a similar discussion regarding how we want to go about setting and disclosing wages. As a preface, probably similarly to France, talking about one's own wage is somewhat taboo in Germany. While there are pay scales available for the public sector, which allow you to infer what wage range a particular position is paid, no such disclosure is typically available for the private sector, whether for- or non-profit. Exceptions are heavily unionized industries where pay scales are negotiated at a very high and broad level. What we do doesn't really fall into those though.
That being said, the most important goal for us when setting hiring practices was that we wanted to get staff that would be most effective. Effectiveness typically requires competence and motivation, the attributes that almost any other employer also looks for. With that goal in mind, there were a number of factors to consider:
- The German workforce is shrinking. Our unemployment rate has been
steadily decreasing for years and is now close to levels not seen since the 1980s. Birth rates have been rather low in Germany for decades meaning less and less people are entering the job market. At the same time, record numbers of people are retiring and immigration is close to non-existent. That means that more and more employers are competing for less and less candidates.
- The kind of work we do and the skills associated with that work are rare
to find. Many of the problems we are trying to tackle are new in the sense that nobody else before us has attempted or succeeded in them. Nobody knows, for example, how to get more people to engage in collaboratively producing an encyclopedia, text books, etc. online. Consider how many attempts WMDE, the Foundation, and others have made in trying to recruit new editors, and how few of those have succeeded. Similarly, nobody really knows how to reform a public education system to move towards utilizing free knowledge resources rather than proprietary printed works. Similarly, nobody really knows how to influence an online community to become more effective, more self-sustaining, and more self-regenerating. The "newness" of many of the challenges we are trying to tackle means we need people who are highly creative, open to take risks, and able to deal with highly complex scenarios.
- There are a number of well-funded organizations looking for the same
kind of people. Many of the problems we're trying to solve are also problems other organizations like Google, Facebook, numerous startups, and some traditional companies interested in diversifying are trying to solve. It is clear that we cannot compete on pay with many of them. That doesn't mean that we can ignore their rates because, in the end, our staff has to be able to pay rent, cover their cost of living, and lead a satisfying life just as much as theirs does.
- We are not like the public sector. People that choose to work for the
government (or quasi-governmental entities) tend to accept lower than market rates because they get other benefits such as job security, generous pension plans, and a high sense of stability in return. We can't really offer those things. Our situation is much more like a startup than a provider of public services. There's today no telling what Wikimedia Deutschland will look 2 much less 5 or 10 years from now--or if it will even exist anymore. That's very different from a public service provider like a school or some administrative agency, which probably won't change all that much in that kind of timeframe.
Taking these factors into account meant that, in general, we would have to orient ourselves more along actual market rates rather than public sector pay scales. We discount the market comparison by a "mission factor" which takes into account that we also wanted to find staff that personally identifies with our mission and wants to work for us to a large portion because of that. Trying to get the best people for each job also means that there's typically not a set pay scale for each position--rather wages and benefits are negotiated one-on-one. As a result, two project managers with different experience, qualifications, subject areas, and negotiation skills, for example, will usually not get paid the same amount.
If we had opted to go the route of "full transparency" instead, we would have severely diminished our ability to negotiate individually, significantly impairing our ability to hire the best staff. We would, in our judgment, have appeared much less attractive to candidates who might also consider working for other employers that don't publicly disclose their pay scales.
Best regards,
Sebastian Moleski President
As some of you know, I've been appointed as Executive Director of Wikimedia France which is a paid position. The opportunity for me to put my convictions into practice on wage transparency.
So for this nomination by the WMFr board, I asked that our association members to be consulted on this appointment (as the board chose one of its members and quite quickly) and the wage (53.000 €/year, gross salary). Few others big French NGO have also done that with their mains paid positions.
This allowed an interesting debate and explanations about this wage that may seem as high for most of our young members, students or who begin with difficulty their working life. But finally almost all agree with the nomination and the wage. I'm strengthened in my conviction that if you are able to explain the salary amount, you should not be afraid of transparency. And transparency also requires the board/ED to be able to justify the salary of any position and wages differentials between staff. If not, the wage is probably not what it should be.
I understand the arguments I've read but do not share it. Recruited the best person is a goal of any recruiting organization, but that should not come at the expense of our values. And transparancy is a core value of our movement.
Thierry
2012/2/7 Samat samat78@gmail.com
Thank you Sebastian! Your response was very interesting and useful for me.
Samat
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:57, Sebastian Moleski < sebastian.moleski@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Please ignore my prior post. I hit send to early.
Hi Thierry,
On 03.02.2012 19:38, Thierry Coudray wrote:
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to
speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market.
I can't speak much for France but I'd like to share some of the WMDE perspective. I hope it's useful to you or anyone else who is considering hiring chapter staff.
When Wikimedia Deutschland started actively recruiting employees in 2008, we had a similar discussion regarding how we want to go about setting and disclosing wages. As a preface, probably similarly to France, talking about one's own wage is somewhat taboo in Germany. While there are pay scales available for the public sector, which allow you to infer what wage range a particular position is paid, no such disclosure is typically available for the private sector, whether for- or non-profit. Exceptions are heavily unionized industries where pay scales are negotiated at a very high and broad level. What we do doesn't really fall into those though.
That being said, the most important goal for us when setting hiring practices was that we wanted to get staff that would be most effective. Effectiveness typically requires competence and motivation, the attributes that almost any other employer also looks for. With that goal in mind, there were a number of factors to consider:
- The German workforce is shrinking. Our unemployment rate has been
steadily decreasing for years and is now close to levels not seen since the 1980s. Birth rates have been rather low in Germany for decades meaning less and less people are entering the job market. At the same time, record numbers of people are retiring and immigration is close to non-existent. That means that more and more employers are competing for less and less candidates.
- The kind of work we do and the skills associated with that work are
rare to find. Many of the problems we are trying to tackle are new in the sense that nobody else before us has attempted or succeeded in them. Nobody knows, for example, how to get more people to engage in collaboratively producing an encyclopedia, text books, etc. online. Consider how many attempts WMDE, the Foundation, and others have made in trying to recruit new editors, and how few of those have succeeded. Similarly, nobody really knows how to reform a public education system to move towards utilizing free knowledge resources rather than proprietary printed works. Similarly, nobody really knows how to influence an online community to become more effective, more self-sustaining, and more self-regenerating. The "newness" of many of the challenges we are trying to tackle means we need people who are highly creative, open to take risks, and able to deal with highly complex scenarios.
- There are a number of well-funded organizations looking for the same
kind of people. Many of the problems we're trying to solve are also problems other organizations like Google, Facebook, numerous startups, and some traditional companies interested in diversifying are trying to solve. It is clear that we cannot compete on pay with many of them. That doesn't mean that we can ignore their rates because, in the end, our staff has to be able to pay rent, cover their cost of living, and lead a satisfying life just as much as theirs does.
- We are not like the public sector. People that choose to work for the
government (or quasi-governmental entities) tend to accept lower than market rates because they get other benefits such as job security, generous pension plans, and a high sense of stability in return. We can't really offer those things. Our situation is much more like a startup than a provider of public services. There's today no telling what Wikimedia Deutschland will look 2 much less 5 or 10 years from now--or if it will even exist anymore. That's very different from a public service provider like a school or some administrative agency, which probably won't change all that much in that kind of timeframe.
Taking these factors into account meant that, in general, we would have to orient ourselves more along actual market rates rather than public sector pay scales. We discount the market comparison by a "mission factor" which takes into account that we also wanted to find staff that personally identifies with our mission and wants to work for us to a large portion because of that. Trying to get the best people for each job also means that there's typically not a set pay scale for each position--rather wages and benefits are negotiated one-on-one. As a result, two project managers with different experience, qualifications, subject areas, and negotiation skills, for example, will usually not get paid the same amount.
If we had opted to go the route of "full transparency" instead, we would have severely diminished our ability to negotiate individually, significantly impairing our ability to hire the best staff. We would, in our judgment, have appeared much less attractive to candidates who might also consider working for other employers that don't publicly disclose their pay scales.
Best regards,
Sebastian Moleski President
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Thank you very much for this, Thierry. And I share your commitment towards transparency as a core value. Congratulations on your appointment too! :-)
anirudh
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Thierry Coudray < thierry.coudray@wikimedia.fr> wrote:
As some of you know, I've been appointed as Executive Director of Wikimedia France which is a paid position. The opportunity for me to putmy convictions into practice on wage transparency.
So for this nomination by the WMFr board, I asked that our association members to be consulted on this appointment (as the board chose one of its members and quite quickly) and the wage (53.000 €/year, gross salary). Few others big French NGO have also done that with their mains paid positions.
This allowed an interesting debate and explanations about this wage that may seem as high for most of our young members, students or who begin with difficulty their working life. But finally almost all agree with the nomination and the wage. I'm strengthened in my conviction that if you are able to explain the salary amount, you should not be afraid of transparency. And transparency also requires the board/ED to be able to justify the salary of any position and wages differentials between staff. If not, the wage is probably not what it should be.
I understand the arguments I've read but do not share it. Recruited the best person is a goal of any recruiting organization, but that should not come at the expense of our values. And transparancy is a core value of our movement.
Thierry
2012/2/7 Samat samat78@gmail.com
Thank you Sebastian! Your response was very interesting and useful for me.
Samat
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:57, Sebastian Moleski < sebastian.moleski@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Please ignore my prior post. I hit send to early.
Hi Thierry,
On 03.02.2012 19:38, Thierry Coudray wrote:
In France, the practice is that the wages in charities or NGOs are generally 15 to 20% below market value. Difficult to check for small organizationsbecause in France, it's culturally not easy to
speak/disclose personal wage even if things are changing. Difficult also because some jobs in charities are very specific and sometimes do not have their equivalent in the job-market.
I can't speak much for France but I'd like to share some of the WMDE perspective. I hope it's useful to you or anyone else who is considering hiring chapter staff.
When Wikimedia Deutschland started actively recruiting employees in 2008, we had a similar discussion regarding how we want to go about setting and disclosing wages. As a preface, probably similarly to France, talking about one's own wage is somewhat taboo in Germany. While there are pay scales available for the public sector, which allow you to infer what wage range a particular position is paid, no such disclosure is typically available for the private sector, whether for- or non-profit. Exceptions are heavily unionized industries where pay scales are negotiated at a very high and broad level. What we do doesn't really fall into those though.
That being said, the most important goal for us when setting hiring practices was that we wanted to get staff that would be most effective. Effectiveness typically requires competence and motivation, the attributes that almost any other employer also looks for. With that goal in mind, there were a number of factors to consider:
- The German workforce is shrinking. Our unemployment rate has been
steadily decreasing for years and is now close to levels not seen since the 1980s. Birth rates have been rather low in Germany for decades meaning less and less people are entering the job market. At the same time, record numbers of people are retiring and immigration is close to non-existent. That means that more and more employers are competing for less and less candidates.
- The kind of work we do and the skills associated with that work are
rare to find. Many of the problems we are trying to tackle are new in the sense that nobody else before us has attempted or succeeded in them. Nobody knows, for example, how to get more people to engage in collaboratively producing an encyclopedia, text books, etc. online. Consider how many attempts WMDE, the Foundation, and others have made in trying to recruit new editors, and how few of those have succeeded. Similarly, nobody really knows how to reform a public education system to move towards utilizing free knowledge resources rather than proprietary printed works. Similarly, nobody really knows how to influence an online community to become more effective, more self-sustaining, and more self-regenerating. The "newness" of many of the challenges we are trying to tackle means we need people who are highly creative, open to take risks, and able to deal with highly complex scenarios.
- There are a number of well-funded organizations looking for the same
kind of people. Many of the problems we're trying to solve are also problems other organizations like Google, Facebook, numerous startups, and some traditional companies interested in diversifying are trying to solve. It is clear that we cannot compete on pay with many of them. That doesn't mean that we can ignore their rates because, in the end, our staff has to be able to pay rent, cover their cost of living, and lead a satisfying life just as much as theirs does.
- We are not like the public sector. People that choose to work for the
government (or quasi-governmental entities) tend to accept lower than market rates because they get other benefits such as job security, generous pension plans, and a high sense of stability in return. We can't really offer those things. Our situation is much more like a startup than a provider of public services. There's today no telling what Wikimedia Deutschland will look 2 much less 5 or 10 years from now--or if it will even exist anymore. That's very different from a public service provider like a school or some administrative agency, which probably won't change all that much in that kind of timeframe.
Taking these factors into account meant that, in general, we would have to orient ourselves more along actual market rates rather than public sector pay scales. We discount the market comparison by a "mission factor" which takes into account that we also wanted to find staff that personally identifies with our mission and wants to work for us to a large portion because of that. Trying to get the best people for each job also means that there's typically not a set pay scale for each position--rather wages and benefits are negotiated one-on-one. As a result, two project managers with different experience, qualifications, subject areas, and negotiation skills, for example, will usually not get paid the same amount.
If we had opted to go the route of "full transparency" instead, we would have severely diminished our ability to negotiate individually, significantly impairing our ability to hire the best staff. We would, in our judgment, have appeared much less attractive to candidates who might also consider working for other employers that don't publicly disclose their pay scales.
Best regards,
Sebastian Moleski President
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
-- Thierry Coudray Directeur exécutif
Wikimédia France http://www.wikimedia.fr/ Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
On 4/2/12 5:25 PM, Thierry Coudray wrote:
I understand the arguments I've read but do not share it. Recruited the best person is a goal of any recruiting organization, but that should not come at the expense of our values. And transparancy is a core value of our movement.
As is privacy. We don't publish the server logs. :)
--Jimbo
Hello,
In the interests of transparency, the Wikimédia France board has decided this month to make public the salaries of its employees. The 4 WMFr employees fully supported the measure before the Board decided to discuss the matter. Any new candidate for a salaried position within Wikimedia France will be informed of this wage transparency.
As ED, I'm in charge of putting this measure into practice, probably by posting in our annual report.
Thierry
2012/4/2 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
On 4/2/12 5:25 PM, Thierry Coudray wrote:
I understand the arguments I've read but do not share it. Recruited the best person is a goal of any recruiting organization, but that should not come at the expense of our values. And transparancy is a core value of our movement.
As is privacy. We don't publish the server logs. :)
--Jimbo
______________________________**_________________ Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/treasurershttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
Please communicate my disappointment at this violation of privacy. Our movement should stand for something in this regard.
The Wikimedia movement is about freedom of information and not HR practices, so I don't think our movement needs to take a position one way or another. Individuals and organizations can and will take positions, and we should be understanding in differences of opinion due to cultural norms, accepted corporate practices in countries, etc. The Wikimedia France board of directors has taken a position, and they will bear the consequences, good or bad. The board may find that it hinders productivity, or that the transparency has a positive effect, but either way, I think we should let Wikimedia France's decision be Wikimedia France's.
Regards, James Hare
Thank you for posting this, James, and I agree with you. I also like the fact that WMFr has taken this step, and I have stated this before. I believe that our movement should stand for greater organizational transparency, and wage scales (if not exact amounts) made available publicly in order to build trust with those who have entrusted us with financial support as well as the volunteer community at large.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:20 AM, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
Please communicate my disappointment at this violation of privacy. Our movement should stand for something in this regard.
The Wikimedia movement is about freedom of information and not HR practices, so I don't think our movement needs to take a position one way or another. Individuals and organizations can and will take positions, and we should be understanding in differences of opinion due to cultural norms, accepted corporate practices in countries, etc. The Wikimedia France board of directors has taken a position, and they will bear the consequences, good or bad. The board may find that it hinders productivity, or that the transparency has a positive effect, but either way, I think we should let Wikimedia France's decision be Wikimedia France's.
Regards, James Hare
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Thank you for the update, Thierry, and for continuing to keep us informed!
While there are a few popular examples of this practice - Semco in Brazil, Happy.co in the UK, &c. - it will be good to see how it works for WM-FR.
Sam.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Thierry Coudray < thierry.coudray@wikimedia.fr> wrote:
Hello,
In the interests of transparency, the Wikimédia France board has decided this month to make public the salaries of its employees. The 4 WMFr employees fully supported the measure before the Board decided to discuss the matter. Any new candidate for a salaried position within Wikimedia France will be informed of this wage transparency.
As ED, I'm in charge of putting this measure into practice, probably by posting in our annual report.
Thierry
2012/4/2 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
On 4/2/12 5:25 PM, Thierry Coudray wrote:
I understand the arguments I've read but do not share it. Recruited the best person is a goal of any recruiting organization, but that should not come at the expense of our values. And transparancy is a core value of our movement.
As is privacy. We don't publish the server logs. :)
--Jimbo
______________________________**_________________ Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/treasurershttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
-- Thierry Coudray Directeur exécutif Wikimédia France http://www.wikimedia.fr/ Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
I thought it interesting to point out to the UK Activity Plan
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_2013_Activity_Plan
with the projections of salary+payroll costs of each position in the association.
Florence
On 7/24/12 7:38 PM, Thierry Coudray wrote:
Hello,
In the interests of transparency, the Wikimédia France board has decided this month to make public the salaries of its employees. The 4 WMFr employees fully supported the measure before the Board decided to discuss the matter. Any new candidate for a salaried position within Wikimedia France will be informed of this wage transparency.
As ED, I'm in charge of putting this measure into practice, probably by posting in our annual report.
Thierry
2012/4/2 Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com mailto:jwales@wikia-inc.com>
On 4/2/12 5:25 PM, Thierry Coudray wrote: I understand the arguments I've read but do not share it. Recruited the best person is a goal of any recruiting organization, but that should not come at the expense of our values. And transparancy is a core value of our movement. As is privacy. We don't publish the server logs. :) --Jimbo _______________________________________________ Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers-- Thierry Coudray Directeur exécutif Wikimédia France http://www.wikimedia.fr/ Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
I think we did this as a by-product of having our budget public, rather than as an 'openness' drive. Making staff wages public can be a little tricky from an HR/staff management perspective, and I'm not sure if there have been any 'official decisions' on the topic by WMUK.
I should also clarify that the figure there isn't our wages, rather, it's the total cost of employing that member of staff, including pensions, Employer National Insurance Contributions, payroll etc.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 1 September 2012 14:54, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
I thought it interesting to point out to the UK Activity Plan
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_2013_Activity_Plan
with the projections of salary+payroll costs of each position in the association.
Florence
On 7/24/12 7:38 PM, Thierry Coudray wrote:
Hello,
In the interests of transparency, the Wikimédia France board has decided this month to make public the salaries of its employees. The 4 WMFr employees fully supported the measure before the Board decided to discuss the matter. Any new candidate for a salaried position within Wikimedia France will be informed of this wage transparency.
As ED, I'm in charge of putting this measure into practice, probably by posting in our annual report.
Thierry
2012/4/2 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
On 4/2/12 5:25 PM, Thierry Coudray wrote:
I understand the arguments I've read but do not share it. Recruited the best person is a goal of any recruiting organization, but that should not come at the expense of our values. And transparancy is a core value of our movement.
As is privacy. We don't publish the server logs. :)
--Jimbo
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
-- Thierry Coudray Directeur exécutif Wikimédia France http://www.wikimedia.fr/ Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/
Treasurers mailing listTreasurers@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Florence Devouard, 01/09/2012 15:54:
I thought it interesting to point out to the UK Activity Plan
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_2013_Activity_Plan
with the projections of salary+payroll costs of each position in the association.
Thank you. Is this one of the heavily discussed and quickly moving parts of the plan? Just to know if it has to be read cum grano salis as the Wikimania bid budget.
Nemo
treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org