Hoi, One argument left out is that Wikimedia is banned in several countries. At this time it relies on the USA. The USA is no longer a stable, predictable law b
On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 at 01:22, Delphine Ménard via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Erik, > > My experience in international HR is that hiring globally is a lofty goal, > but that it rarely works in practice, or at least, it makes it difficult > for any organization to maintain any semblance of equity or fairness in how > people are hired across the world. > > Here are a few reasons why it does not work as we think it does: > > *On cost and employer of record model (EOR)* > While the WMF has until now hired pretty much everywhere, it has done so > at great cost. Hiring with an employer of record is simply much more > expensive than hiring from "home" (wherever home is). The cost of an > employee in most countries through an employer of record is about 10% to > 15% on top of the person's salary cost to employer, if not more in certain > countries. With 700+ employees, I'll let you make the calculation, there > are a lot of millions of donors' money that go to hiring people all over > the world. This alone might not be a reason to restrict hiring locations, > but it's worth mentioning in this conversation :) > > *On talent in a global a hiring context* > It is a bit counterintuitive, but the reality of the job market is such > that hiring "globally" for each and every position does not always yield > the most diverse or representative talent. When you're from say, {{insert > here Global South location}}, and you compete with the world for a > position, there is a good chance that someone from {{insert here Global > North location}} will have better recognized education, better credentials, > and experience that suits the role better (it works a bit like the > credibility of sources that are not Time or Der Spiegel, you know?). This > means that in a world where you have 1000 applications for any given > position from the whole world, there's a good chance that people from > countries where access to the recognized credentials and experience is > harder simply won't apply, not because of ability, but because of perceived > competitiveness. If you target a more focused number of countries and state > "I want someone from {{insert here any country}}", your 1000 applicants > will all come from the same background, and you can increase the quality > and true diversity of the applicant pool, and hence the talent you end up > recruiting. > > *On legal complexity* > Working with an employer of record means following local laws. No > organization can maintain deep expertise in labor laws in 50 countries, > without significant and costly overhead. My experience with Employers of > record is that they also act sometimes very superficially as a mere > "payroll manager" and not as real employer (well, they're a real employer > on paper, but not really on the ground). They don't always offer the best > conditions for employees, which makes the Foundation be not always > competitive on local job markets. This is not true everywhere, but the idea > is that the more people you will employ in a country, the more chances that > the Foundation, through the EOR, is better positioned to understand and > meet local standards. > > *On global benefits* > Following local laws introduces by design unfair comparisons between > locations. Some countries have an excellent health system backed up by > employer contributions, others don't. Some have tons of holidays, other > don't. Some have robust pension schemes, others don't, Some have hire and > fire practices (California), others have long and complicated schemes to > let go of an employee (France). This has advantages and disavantages > depending on where you are (and whether you are the employer or the > employee), but it makes it extremely difficult to have any kind of unity in > the organizational culture. I worked a bit on the idea of "global benefits" > when I was at the Foundation, and thought about what basic requirements > we'd need to have to have some fairness. Well, the work to do that is > titanesque and requires ... even more money, and time. > > *On equity across locations* > I am a proponent of compensation based on location (what the Foundation > does), because to have some equity, you shouldn't pay everyone in the world > a San Francisco salary, where one person on the West Coast of the US lives > in an appartment, while someone in a country with a much lower cost of > living ends up in a mansion with pool (that's about the factor you're going > to have between the two ends of your "hiring spectrum" when you have more > than one region in the world and more than 15-20 countries). Hiring from > 50+ countries means a lot of discrepancies, and maintaining fair salary > benchmarks is an enormous ongoing undertaking. As an example, research we > did when I was in HR at the Foudation showed how salaries scales don't > follow the same progression depending on context and countries, so you > can't just index your salaries on one country and call it a day with a > local adjustment factor, you need to understand the compensation > technicalities in each country. Fair compensation globally requires country > specific research that is expensive, time-sensitive and int he end > volatile, given the current global economic climate. > > *To conclude, *diversity is extremely important for the Foundation staff > to connect with the Wikimedia communities around the world. But there is > quite a difference between geographic diversity and hiring equity. If the > Foundation researches a few countries that are representative of various > regions, and becomes a competiive and well-informed employer there (even > through an EOR), to attract diverse and excellent talent, then I think we > can all benefit from it, and the Foundation employees even more, as they'll > probably have a better employer. > > I'll be honest, I have no clue how the Foundation decided this or that > country (for the US, I think it's because you have to be registered in a > state where you hire someone and the registration again will drive > cost/legal complexity depending on the state), so I don't know if cost was > the only driver. I'd be curious to know more about what motivated this > decision and how it's going to be followed up upon. If the direction is > towards deepening their expertise to be a better employer, I think it can > be a good thing. > > Yes, diversity takes a bit of a hit, but I think equity might actually > benefit from this in the long run. > > I imagine however that if I was still Foundation staff, I would question > whether my country is next, and that can't be a fun space to be in. INnthis > I join you in the hope that HR and leadership is approaching these matters > with the necessary care. > > Cheers, > > Delphine > > Le jeu. 19 mars 2026 à 23:11, Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >> Hi there, >> >> It looks like the number of US states WMF can currently hire from >> excludes quite a few states (e.g., Nevada, Maine, New Hampshire, >> Kansas, etc.). [1] My understanding is that the list of countries from >> which the Wikimedia Foundation can hire has also been rather >> substantially reduced recently (e.g., no longer including Denmark, >> Ireland, Sweden, Costa Rica). >> >> In my view, as an international org, WMF should ideally aspire to hire >> amazing people wherever they may be. There will naturally be limits, >> especially when maintaining a legal presence in a particular country >> imposes unacceptable risks on the organization or its employees. >> >> That said, I would distinguish between 1) intractable limits ("we >> can't be in this country because it would expose us to too much risk") >> and 2) limits imposed by cost/benefit calculations ("we can't hire in >> Nevada because we don't judge the talent pool to be worth the cost"). >> >> In the latter case, I hope WMF will prioritize being expansive rather >> than restrictive, because the ability to hire as broadly as possible >> should be understood as a core value. Given the broader organizational >> and movement value considerations, I feel this is an appropriate topic >> for this list. >> >> (Please note that I say this with much love and respect for the work >> legal and HR professionals do navigating these complex matters daily. >> Ultimately, this feels like a leadership question to me: what is the >> ability to hire in more locations worth to the organization?) >> >> What's WMF's take on that question? Does the organization view >> expanding that list again as a future goal? >> >> Warmly, >> >> Erik >> >> [1] >> https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/7612860?gh_src=vbdohg801us >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/YNLAAF6F6NBULLOBZAQDWJTDZHBTNCEY/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/GK4JCASVGC2NHSKISG7WXZNHM6Q46RLN/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/G5F6CED7H3UXSTH7M7JEOSXQGSPVJVHF/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
