[Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility

[Michael Snow]

On 11/22/2010 1:08 PM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/22/2010 11:31:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> wikipedia at frontier.com writes:
>> On 11/22/2010 10:47 AM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
>>> In a message dated 11/22/2010 10:33:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>>> rkaldari at 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