[Wikimedia-l] fiction: WMF policy of paying less than market

[Milos Rancic]

While a number of my friends are employed by WMF and I heard no one to
complain about salary or working conditions, it would be good to have
annual report of salaries and other benefits of WMF employees compared to
the siruation in the other similar and some not so similar organizations.

I can guess what are the advantages and disadvantages of being employed by
WMF, but it would be good not to speculate.
 On Mar 7, 2013 12:59 PM, "Jan-Bart de Vreede" <jdevreede at wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Hi james, (renamed thread to not distract from NDA discussion)
>
> Your concerns have been noted, several times.
>
> But I do want to make sure you (and everyone else) realise that there is
> no FACT like the one that you mention.
>
> "fact that the
> > Foundation's policy of paying below market salary discriminates
> > against potential hires with large expenses such as kids in college or
> > a mortgage from 2007?"
>
> because
> a)  there is no such policy. There are several areas where WMF pays market
> salary or more. Please don't create a myth. I have talked to our recruiters
> and they confirm this. Stating it as fact does not help your case or your
> credibility. In my experience WMF compensation and other benefits is well
> thought about and choices have been made (you might not agree with their
> outcome but they are being made, they don't "happen to us")
> b) you could argue that any salary level discriminates against people who
> need more. Just because I chose to have three kids (who will hopefully end
> up going to college if they want to do so) and choose to live where I want
> to live does not mean someone who offers me a salary which is unable to
> support my choices is discriminating against me… I live by the choices I
> make…
>
> Finally I find the idea of restraining people to talk about salary almost
> comical in the WMF sense… as I find the idea of any substantial discussion
> amongst WMF employees being "restrained" by a document unrealistic. I am
> grateful that we have enough critical employees who are willing to voice
> their opinion on pretty much everything.
>
> While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I think that its time to stop
> spreading a myth. If you do insist on tackling the issue, please base
> yourself on facts and not small sets of data an generalisations. I don't
> have all the fact either, but I know enough to know that your generalising
> statements are incorrect, so please stop making them.
>
> Jan-Bart
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 12:51 AM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to know more about the non-disparagement clause which
> > multiple people have stated that the Foundation's NDA includes. In
> > particular, does it forbid employees from discussing the fact that the
> > Foundation's policy of paying below market salary discriminates
> > against potential hires with large expenses such as kids in college or
> > a mortgage from 2007? Does it forbid employees from discussing the
> > fact that the only evidence ever produced by Foundation employees in
> > support of that policy is a non-peer reviewed popular press book which
> > is not only contradicted by all of the recent secondary sources on the
> > subject, but the interpretation of which is contradicted by the author
> > of the book himself?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>