[Osmf-talk] Interesting Points | Re: Funding of iD Development and Maintenance
Rory McCann
rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org
Sat Aug 22 14:13:04 UTC 2020
Yes, these are good points.
I think we want to have a permanent (“unended”) employee. We are not
trying to hire someone for a fixed task(s) which can be completed. We
want someone to do ongoing sysadmin maintenance things. I think OSM
traffic & usage will continue to grow, so I predict the sysadmin-ing
needs for OSM will not go down any time soon.
As you say, it's legally fine to “just not renew” a fixed-term contract,
and yes the employee might know to not rely on that. A fixed term
contract with the unspoken rule of “of course we'll just renew it every
year” wink wink can, de facto, feel like a permanent employment
contract. Since the job we're looking to fill is essentially permanent,
offering a permanent role is logical.
You're right about how it constrains us, but I think it accurately
communicates the board's expectations to the (prospective) employee.
On 13/08/2020 10:40, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 08:43, Rory McCann <rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> We didn't discuss the specifics of that contract. permanent / fixed
>> term. Yes, legally there is a difference, but in practice is it a large
>> difference? We have the right to make a position redundant, and that
>> might cost money, but it is very different from telling someone “we're
>> not renewing your fixed term contract”? Either way, someone is pissed
>> off, right?
>
> Yes, it makes a big difference, both to the employee, and to the OSMF.
>
> For the employee, it sets expectations. If the position is advertised
> as permanent, then the employee has a reasonable expectation that it
> will continue to exist, as advertised, for a few years, if not longer.
> But if there's a reasonable chance that the OSMF wants to review the
> role and responsibilities, maybe after the first year or first two
> years, then it's unfair on the employee to advertise it as permanent.
> For many people, being made redundant 1 year into a permanent contract
> will be a horrible experience, and will feel entirely different to
> working on a 1 year fixed contract that was not renewed.
>
> It also affects the OSMF. Altering the roles and responsibilities of a
> permanent position is much harder, and the emotional impact on
> volunteer board members of steering a situation of enforced redundancy
> (perhaps on an employee we are all friends with) would be a big ask.
> It's a tough situation and most board members would choose the "muddle
> along" option, rather than the "grasping the thorn" option, since
> there is nothing pleasant about managing redundancies (especially, as
> discussed above, if the employee wasn't expecting it). Whereas a
> fixed-term contract is easier - if everyone is happy, the contract can
> be easily extended, whereas if the role needs to end it does so by
> default, with much less emotional damage to the board members and the
> whole organisation.
>
> Now of course there are advantages to having a permanent position
> advertised - you'll get a different pool of candidates, the permanence
> of the contract will likely mean lower salary expectations, short term
> contracts might be unnecessary for this particular role, and so on. I
> don't mean to say that I know one option is better than the other.
>
> What I really want to hear from the Board is that they recognise which
> bits of these decisions are not easy to reverse, and as well as
> recognising those situations they are also considering the
> alternatives.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rory_mccann.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 4 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200822/eea5832f/attachment.vcf>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list