Dear All Thank you Delphine for an incredible breakdown of the complexities. Although you raised elements that we encounter from time to time and/or seem logical, it is incredibly helpful to the discussion and our general understanding to have the challenges set out so clearly and succinctly.
It is such an interesting topic (thank you Erik) and very valuable for the movement. For those of us in the movement who do hire from more locations than the ‘home’ country, it would be helpful for the WMF to provide detail beyond which countries are no longer on the list, ie what considerations crossed the line … of course the countries on the US banned lists make sense, and the US state requirement to register also does, etc. James, it was my understanding (probably outdated) that most of those hired outside the US were on a long term contractual basis (this might have changed at some time) and did not get benefits of healthcare, etc. that the US hires did. So I think there might be confusion about exactly what a ‘contract’ means. As in a person in a ‘staff’ role that is contracted with the intention of renewing, or a short term/project only contract. It makes sense that the short term contracts are unaffected by the new policy, and the long term ones are. But that is just speculation on my part. I’d also be interested to hear what others in the movement who also do regional or global hires also think, especially those of us from outside the US. It is definitely a minefield of mission-fuelled expectations vs reality, and - in the interests of assuming good faith - this announcement does seem to be the result of a long road of the WMF trying different options. I also wonder how much of this is a reaction to added US scrutiny … Warmest Isla Isla Haddow-Flood @havingaflood On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 at 02:22, 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/FUGYOKPE4BRZYG4QEXYUK42SRFQEPN34/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
