4 ms·

The management seems to be extracting lots of value into their own personal wealth. Sure, that might end up killing the company long term but the amount of weal

The management seems to be extracting lots of value into their own personal wealth. Sure, that might end up killing the company long term but the amount of wealth they're extracting has the top management set for life.

xhkkffbf 3y ago
Aren't they a non-profit?
- muro 3y ago
  What does being a non-profit have to do with management compensation? People don't work there for free.
  - olyjohn 3y ago
    No but that seems to be the expectation. People act like if it's a non-profit that they have to be held to the highest standards, and everybody there should be volunteering out of the goodness of their heart. Meanwhile, anything done by a for-profit company is okay, because they're a business and they have to make money. Fucking bullshit.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. See also: Boy Scouts of America. Nearly bankrupt from sex abuse lawsuits, the program itself may fold, but no executive is going hungry. See also: the Susan Komen foundation, whose only function is to raise money to talk about breast cancer. Not to cure it, just to raise awareness of it.
  - runlaszlorun 3y ago
    > Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. Are many senior non-profit execs overpaid for underperforming? You’re prob right. But the hyperbole takes away from your point, IMHO.
    - throwaway-blaze 3y ago
      Salaries and benefits are generally deducted from taxable gains at every company in the western world, not even just in the USA.
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      > Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. The NFL's non-profit status has been contentious for years. > Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code specifically defines professional football leagues as exempt organizations under that section. These organizations are exempt whether or not they administer a pension fund for football players. (Irs.gov)
      - okprod 3y ago
        To be clear, the difference between the NFL (when it was a 501(c)(6)) and Mozilla as a 501(c)(3) is the former tax status specifies an entity's purpose as serving members of an association, while 501(c)(3)s have a purpose to serve the public good. Strictly from a nonprofit financial perspective and from reviewing its most recently filed public 990, Mozilla doesn't pay its senior staff an exorbitant amount; it looks to be an entity with $20-$30M in revenue and double that in assets, so seeing its highest paid employees making $200-$300K isn't out of the ordinary. It does look to pay quite a bit to Upwork, which I assume is their rent expense. It can be difficult to tell from a 990 if there is fraud going on however.

xhkkffbf 3y ago

Aren't they a non-profit?

muro 3y ago
What does being a non-profit have to do with management compensation? People don't work there for free.
- olyjohn 3y ago
  No but that seems to be the expectation. People act like if it's a non-profit that they have to be held to the highest standards, and everybody there should be volunteering out of the goodness of their heart. Meanwhile, anything done by a for-profit company is okay, because they're a business and they have to make money. Fucking bullshit.
jstarfish 3y ago
Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. See also: Boy Scouts of America. Nearly bankrupt from sex abuse lawsuits, the program itself may fold, but no executive is going hungry. See also: the Susan Komen foundation, whose only function is to raise money to talk about breast cancer. Not to cure it, just to raise awareness of it.
- runlaszlorun 3y ago
  > Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. Are many senior non-profit execs overpaid for underperforming? You’re prob right. But the hyperbole takes away from your point, IMHO.
  - throwaway-blaze 3y ago
    Salaries and benefits are generally deducted from taxable gains at every company in the western world, not even just in the USA.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. The NFL's non-profit status has been contentious for years. > Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code specifically defines professional football leagues as exempt organizations under that section. These organizations are exempt whether or not they administer a pension fund for football players. (Irs.gov)
    - okprod 3y ago
      To be clear, the difference between the NFL (when it was a 501(c)(6)) and Mozilla as a 501(c)(3) is the former tax status specifies an entity's purpose as serving members of an association, while 501(c)(3)s have a purpose to serve the public good. Strictly from a nonprofit financial perspective and from reviewing its most recently filed public 990, Mozilla doesn't pay its senior staff an exorbitant amount; it looks to be an entity with $20-$30M in revenue and double that in assets, so seeing its highest paid employees making $200-$300K isn't out of the ordinary. It does look to pay quite a bit to Upwork, which I assume is their rent expense. It can be difficult to tell from a 990 if there is fraud going on however.