8 ms·
This: "Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's top executive, was paid $2.4m in 2018, [..]. Payments to Baker have more than doubled in the last five years." and this at th
by RobertoG 6y ago
This:
"Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's top executive, was paid $2.4m in 2018, [..]. Payments to Baker have more than doubled in the last five years."
and this at the same time:
"Mozilla recently announced that they would be dismissing 250 people."
It's shameful. Specially for a "non profit".
- lagadu 6y agoThat argument is senseless: the organization is nonprofit, the workers are definitely not, nor should they be.
- RobertoG 6y agoNot sure what you are trying to say here. We have an organization where, at the same time they don't have revenue enough for keeping its workers, the decision makers increase their salary. Never mind the legal structure of the organization, that doesn't look to me very ethical. At the same time, non-profits are suppose to have the mission of improving the world. I understand that the janitor doesn't care about the mission and just want to be payed, but the management should care, at least, about the optics. I, for sure, would not donate (1) to a non-profit if I think that my money is going to be used for buying Ferrari or houses in the Hamptons. (1) - https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/
- fierarul 6y agoMozilla Inc is not a non-profit. The parent organization is.
- findthewords 6y agoHow is it possible that non-profitness does not inherit to a child company? Seems like a conflict of interest.
- jansan 6y agoAnd why should anyone contribute to an open source project of a for-profit company without being compensated?
- rv-de 6y agowhat idiots downvoted this very reasonable statement?
- tomp 6y agoIt's not reasonable. The whole thread is stupid. Non-profit just means that the company cannot make / pay out profit. It can still pay its employees a lot of money. It can still own for-profit corporate entities, take their profit, and spend it on other (non-money-making) causes.
- rv-de 6y agothe context is "for-profit" ... if a company is for-profit and somebody is contributing for free then that is a very personal choice - but there are more obvious reasons for not doing so.
- tomp 6y agoIt's not for-profit. The whole organisation is non-profit. It's being funded by contributions, as well as profits from a subsidiary. The fact that one of the subsidiaries is structured as a for-profit is a red herring. Just a legal structure. The whole organisation is non-profit.
- rv-de 6y agoIf a CEO can justify such a salary then it is very much for-profit ... your argument is just a play with words.
- 6y ago
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoThat’s how you know it’s performative wokeness. There should be more uproar about an indefensible salary like that but the CEO is a woman with asymmetric hair and conformist opinions.
- wffurr 6y agoThe rest of this thread that is not rehashing the Eich thing is exactly an uproar about an indefensible salary.
- Angeo34 6y agoEich is one of the worst humans in the software industry. Put aside all the social and political problems with him even technically (Brave) he values profit over human decency.
- chmod775 6y agoYou could save a lot of jobs by cutting into the CEOs salary, jobs of people who actually do something productive.
- bdcravens 6y agoHow many jobs? I agree they are overpaid, but that salary covers maybe 10% of those job cuts.
- fluidcruft 6y agoIf the numbers in these threads are correct (CEO compensation at $2.5m/year, 250 employees laid off) then the entirety of executive compensation would only cover $10k/year of each laid off worker's compensation.
- marcus_holmes 6y agoAdd in a couple of VP's and the gap will lessen. The point is not so much that the CEO's pay directly matches the salaries of the sacked employees, more that the CEO is clearly focused on their personal goals, rather than the organisational goals. CEO's who reduce their salary in order to keep more staff on in lean times are servants of their organisation. CEO's who sack staff to save money so they can increase their own salary see the organisation as their servant. It's not a crime to be greedy, but being greedy is a clear signal of your values and goals.
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- PopsiclePete 6y agoIt's shameful period, non-profit or for-profit. But - don't hate the player, hate the game. Our entire system has been setup like this for decades. 99% of earnings have been going to the top 1% for decades now. I understand people who don't want to get behind BLM - I might not agree with them, but I "get" them. But the fact that the country looked at Occupy Wallstreet and collectively shrugged its shoulders and said "I don't see a problem here" - well, here we are - slowly building back a feudal society while blaming the poorest amongst us for our troubles.