4 ms·

1. Labor law is local. This adds (on a per-country basis) legal risk and compliance costs, as well as operational costs (e.g., you might need to have specific p

1. Labor law is local. This adds (on a per-country basis) legal risk and compliance costs, as well as operational costs (e.g., you might need to have specific policies that apply to employees in specific countries). 2. Taxation regimes. These too vary by country, and add compliance and operational costs. 3. Other laws (both U.S. and foreign) that make hiring foreign nationals complex in certain situations, e.g., ITAR. When considered together, these costs and operational obstacles can be significant.

lemme_tell_ya 3y ago
I work for a small tech company in the US (~25 employees) and a few of them are in Europe. My boss didn't seem to have any issue hiring them and he wears a lot of hats, and we didn't hire them due to cost but to their very specific expertise.
redcobra762 3y ago
No, sorry. These are all defeated by hiring contractors. The real issues are, ironically, the collaborative barriers. Different cultures have different standards of work, a different working culture, and honestly different time zones. The “24 hour dev shop” is a risk, but work moving overseas is only a problem at the commodified software level, like a SaaS b2b where a shit tool with one little innovation saves five minutes can scale to millions in savings.
- npsomaratna 3y ago
  Not necessarily. Consider this situation: you hire a contractor. They work for you for several years, and then you fire them. The contractor goes to the labor court in their country and files a claim stating that, yes, their contract says that they are an independent contractor, but no, since you've employed them "full-time" for several years continuously, they are a defacto/de jure employee. (Which is a valid argument under the labor laws of certain countries) What will you do: - Spend the time and money refuting their claim? (You need to find a good lawyer in that foreign country; lawyers are expensive; and someone on your side needs to spend their time coordinating with them) - Ignore the claim? (Not a good idea if you ever want to visit that country in the future) The claim itself might be nonsense; that's immaterial. You're faced with a Hobson's choice if said contractor drags you to court. (Addendum: this is why I made the point that labor law is local. When you hire a national of a foreign country, in general, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the courts of that country for labor related disputes. I am not sure if a clause in an employment contract stating that the agreement is governed by U.S. law would be accepted by a local court; and even if it did, in litigation, you'd most likely have to represent yourself before the local court to make that objection.)
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    You don’t fire contractors, their contract just ends. Additionally, the contract is often with the company, not the individual, so their employees aren’t in any legal sense working “for” you. If an employee wants to litigate, they’re opposing the contracting company, not you. This comes with some downsides of its own, but generally this circumvents most labor issues. And of course anyone can sue for any reason, but if the argument is that the individual will pester you with lawsuits, can’t anyone do that to anyone else about anything?
    - npsomaratna 3y ago
      Fair enough, yes. If you're contracting with a third-party company that takes up the risk of hiring the employee, that does circumvent these issues. Re: the lawsuits—yes, the barrier to initiate litigation is low (in most countries); but in my experience, most folks only start litigation when they feel significantly wronged. Problem is, given the difference in cultures (something you pointed out earlier), an act by the company that is perfectly standard in the U.S. might be interpreted very differently by someone from another country.

lemme_tell_ya 3y ago

I work for a small tech company in the US (~25 employees) and a few of them are in Europe. My boss didn't seem to have any issue hiring them and he wears a lot of hats, and we didn't hire them due to cost but to their very specific expertise.

redcobra762 3y ago

No, sorry. These are all defeated by hiring contractors. The real issues are, ironically, the collaborative barriers. Different cultures have different standards of work, a different working culture, and honestly different time zones. The “24 hour dev shop” is a risk, but work moving overseas is only a problem at the commodified software level, like a SaaS b2b where a shit tool with one little innovation saves five minutes can scale to millions in savings.

npsomaratna 3y ago
Not necessarily. Consider this situation: you hire a contractor. They work for you for several years, and then you fire them. The contractor goes to the labor court in their country and files a claim stating that, yes, their contract says that they are an independent contractor, but no, since you've employed them "full-time" for several years continuously, they are a defacto/de jure employee. (Which is a valid argument under the labor laws of certain countries) What will you do: - Spend the time and money refuting their claim? (You need to find a good lawyer in that foreign country; lawyers are expensive; and someone on your side needs to spend their time coordinating with them) - Ignore the claim? (Not a good idea if you ever want to visit that country in the future) The claim itself might be nonsense; that's immaterial. You're faced with a Hobson's choice if said contractor drags you to court. (Addendum: this is why I made the point that labor law is local. When you hire a national of a foreign country, in general, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the courts of that country for labor related disputes. I am not sure if a clause in an employment contract stating that the agreement is governed by U.S. law would be accepted by a local court; and even if it did, in litigation, you'd most likely have to represent yourself before the local court to make that objection.)
- redcobra762 3y ago
  You don’t fire contractors, their contract just ends. Additionally, the contract is often with the company, not the individual, so their employees aren’t in any legal sense working “for” you. If an employee wants to litigate, they’re opposing the contracting company, not you. This comes with some downsides of its own, but generally this circumvents most labor issues. And of course anyone can sue for any reason, but if the argument is that the individual will pester you with lawsuits, can’t anyone do that to anyone else about anything?
  - npsomaratna 3y ago
    Fair enough, yes. If you're contracting with a third-party company that takes up the risk of hiring the employee, that does circumvent these issues. Re: the lawsuits—yes, the barrier to initiate litigation is low (in most countries); but in my experience, most folks only start litigation when they feel significantly wronged. Problem is, given the difference in cultures (something you pointed out earlier), an act by the company that is perfectly standard in the U.S. might be interpreted very differently by someone from another country.