Letter to members on renaming TM‑001 the Fair Hiring Cost Standard

From: Nikola Jurić, Chair, Team Council, Leipzig, Germany; with the Team Council Rapporteur

Letter to members on renaming TM-001 the Fair Hiring Cost Standard

Dear members,

We are writing to propose a clearer name for the work we have been doing together. We ask that TM-001 be referred to as the Fair Hiring Cost Standard. The proposed name describes the practical issue before us: the costs and administrative steps a small employer faces when bringing a person onto the books. It also identifies the kind of solution we are exploring, without claiming that a standard has already been completed or adopted.

This is a request about the name and the way we explain the work. It does not change TM-001’s evidence, its place in the Council process, or the limits of what we can responsibly say. Our interim review records two of the five pattern tests met. The remaining tests must still be examined; the issue has not passed the full pattern test. We will continue to distinguish an observed pattern from a proposed remedy, and a proposal from an adopted standard.

Who we are and what we are mandated to do

The Team Council is one of seven councils in Reseated, the Founders Assembly: a global assembly of small-business owners. Members report on practices that affect small businesses. They may take part anonymously unless they choose a public seat. In keeping with that approach, this letter does not identify any member’s business, and members’ accounts should not be connected to a named business without that member’s explicit choice.

Our mandate is to examine practices, not to make accusations against particular employers, providers, or public bodies. For each problem, Reseated follows a defined sequence: collect reports; test whether the pattern is supported by volume, frequency, consistency, spread, and corroboration; develop a draft fix if the evidence supports doing so; consult publicly; put the proposal to an Assembly ballot; and, if adopted, send letters to the chief executives able to adopt it. Seats are then tracked as proposed, letter sent, delivered, replied, signed, or empty chair. These steps make the difference between evidence, consultation, decision, and response visible to members and the public.

TM-001 concerns the costs of a first hire and the steps that can make a small employer hesitate before hiring formally. The policy direction under examination is lower and simpler employment costs for a business’s first ten hires: phased social contributions, one-stop payroll registration, and predictable rules. These are proposals for consideration, not a description of current law in every country and not a claim that one design can be applied identically across jurisdictions.

On 13 October, the Council circulated its interim pattern-review note, RC/TM/2026/N.1, recording two of the five tests met. We are therefore at an early stage. A rename can help members and other audiences understand the question, but it cannot substitute for the remaining evidence work or authorize us to present the proposed measures as settled.

What the evidence shows as of 26 October

The figures below are Reseated’s internal records as of this letter’s date. They describe participation and reports; they are not estimates of the prevalence of hiring costs in the wider economy. The Team Council has 123 members from 39 countries and has received 178 reports from 43 countries. The median amount reported at stake is approximately US$4,220. All 178 reports in the Council’s records are categorized as concerning hiring costs. The Council’s records do not provide an industry or sector breakdown, so we do not draw conclusions about which sectors are most affected.

The countries with the largest report counts in the Council’s records are Canada, 27; the United States, 23; Germany, 13; Italy, 12; the United Kingdom, 10; Brazil, 7; Mexico, 7; and India, 7. This is a list of leading counts, not a complete country distribution. The eight listed counts do not account for all 178 reports. The members’ experiences reach beyond these countries, as shown by the 43-country total.

For Assembly-wide context, the 26 October internal record lists 1,780 seated members in 49 countries and 5,430 reports from 50 countries. The reports are distributed across the councils as follows: Platform, 1,962; Cashflow, 1,358; Fair Play, 712; Trade, 535; Resilience, 380; Red Tape, 305; and Team, 178. The Team Council’s evidence should

be understood as one part of that larger reporting process, not as a standalone survey of all small employers.

Public sources also give important context, while measuring different things from Reseated’s reports. The OECD reports an OECD-average tax wedge of 35.1% for 2025. Its 2026 country note gives Germany as 49.3%, France as 47.2%, Italy as 45.8%, Spain as 41.4%, Sweden as 41.1%, the Netherlands as 35.9%, and New Zealand as 20.8%. These figures show that the reported tax wedge differs across countries; they do not tell us what any individual member pays or establish a single explanation for a hiring decision.¹

The International Labour Organization estimates that micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises account for around 70% of employment worldwide, and that around 80% of them operate in the informal economy.² Those global estimates make the question of formal hiring important, but they do not prove that employment costs alone cause informality. The Council’s work should test the accounts members have submitted and remain careful about what the data can and cannot establish.

Legal and policy context

Members work under different national systems. The Council’s records do not contain a comparative legal analysis of payroll registration, employer contributions, or first-hire relief in each of the 43 countries represented in Team Council reports. We therefore do not describe one country’s rules as applicable elsewhere, and we do not offer legal advice. Members should check the rules and advice that apply in their own jurisdiction before making employment decisions.

For Germany, the OECD’s 2026 country note reports a 49.3% tax wedge for 2025.¹ That statistic is relevant context for the Chair’s location, but it is not a complete account of German employment law, a measure specific to a first hire, or proof of the amount any particular small employer would pay. We do not infer a legal entitlement to relief from it. For other countries, the figures in the OECD source likewise provide comparative context rather than a substitute for local rules.

In the United Kingdom, the Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May 2026. That development concerns a different policy area and is included here only as a case of a dated legislative event recorded in the Assembly’s timeline, not as legislation on hiring costs or as evidence of a position taken by any official.

Our request is consequently directed first to members: help us document the practical steps and costs accurately in your jurisdiction. Where it is useful to engage public officials, address the relevant office by its proper office or function, and make clear that you are presenting member evidence and asking for consideration. Do not attribute a view to an official unless it has been publicly stated and can be verified. Do not describe a proposal from this Council as current government policy.

Why use the name Fair Hiring Cost Standard

“The cost of a first hire” has been a useful description of the evidence question. It can also sound narrower than the work members have reported. The proposed name, Fair Hiring Cost Standard, puts the focus on fairness and practical administration while leaving open what a fair design should contain. “Standard” signals that the Council is considering a common set of principles; it does not mean that a standard has been approved. The name should be used with that qualification until the evidence, consultation, and decision steps have been completed.

The proposal also gives members a concise way to explain the aim: make the first ten hires more feasible for a small employer through lower and simpler costs, phased social contributions, one-stop payroll registration, and predictable rules. The number ten marks the scope of the policy proposal described in TM-001. It is not a claim that every business should hire ten people, or that the same threshold is suitable in every national system.

We do not ask members to support a predetermined tax rate, contribution exemption, registration platform, or legal instrument. Those details require evidence and, where appropriate, consultation with people who understand the relevant systems. A fair standard must consider both whether a measure helps small employers hire formally and whether its design is understandable, predictable, and workable. It must also avoid making promises about effects that the evidence has not established.

Requests to members

1. Please use “TM-001: Fair Hiring Cost Standard” as the proposed working name in Council discussion and member communications. Until an Assembly decision is made, please do not describe the name or any policy design as adopted.

2. Please continue submitting first-hand accounts through the established evidence process. A useful report states what happened, when it happened, what steps or costs were involved, and what consequence followed for the hiring decision. Where possible, distinguish a quoted amount from an estimate, and say whether a figure is a one-time cost, a recurring cost, or an amount of time spent. Do not include another person’s personal information unless it is necessary and you have permission to share it.

3. Please describe the relevant jurisdiction and the size of the team in the terms requested by the reporting process. If you report a sector or type of work, do so only where it is accurate and safe to share. We currently lack a sector breakdown in the figures presented here; better records may help us assess whether experiences vary by sector, but we will not fill that gap by guessing.

4. Please identify the point at which a hiring process becomes difficult: before registration, during payroll setup, when estimating contributions, when meeting a payment deadline, or at another stage. This level of detail can help the Council distinguish the cost of employment from the burden of understanding and administering the process.

5. Please tell us whether you have considered hiring, delayed a hire, hired formally, or chosen another arrangement, and what factors contributed. We do not assume that a reported cost was the only cause. A careful account of other relevant factors strengthens the evidence rather than weakening it.

6. Please help us test the five-part pattern before we advance a remedy. Reports should be considered for volume, frequency, consistency, spread, and corroboration. Members can flag where accounts appear similar, where they differ, and what additional material might help verify a pattern. Do not treat a number of reports as proof on its own.

7. Please send corrections or concerns about the proposed name and the description in this letter to the Team Council through Reseated’s established channels. We want the words we use to be clear to members in different jurisdictions and not to imply that the Council has reached a conclusion it has not reached.

Offer of anonymized data

The Council can prepare an anonymized summary of relevant reports for members who are developing analysis or engaging with policy discussions. Subject to confidentiality and the protections governing member submissions, that summary may include aggregated counts, broad descriptions of reported steps, and ranges or summaries of amounts where disclosure would not expose a member. It will not identify a member or a member’s business. We will not provide small-cell details or distinctive case descriptions if they could make a person or business identifiable.

Members who need a summary should state the intended use, jurisdiction, and question they are examining. The Secretariat and Council can then consider what can safely and accurately be shared. Anonymization does not make incomplete data representative, and an aggregated figure should not be described as an official statistic or as a legal conclusion. If a public body or researcher requests evidence, members may also ask that any use preserve these limitations and avoid attributing individual accounts to named businesses.

Next steps

The immediate task is to improve the evidence, not to rush to a final design. The interim review records two tests met. The Council must continue to assess the remaining tests before deciding whether the reports support a draft fix. If the process advances, a draft will be made available for public consultation; members and other affected parties will have an opportunity to comment; and the Assembly will decide by ballot whether to adopt a proposal. Only after that decision would the Assembly’s process for letters to relevant chief executives apply, where appropriate. No letter, response, or commitment should be assumed before it is recorded.

We believe Fair Hiring Cost Standard is a useful name because it is direct about the issue and leaves room for evidence to shape the answer. We ask you to help us make that answer specific to the real administrative and financial decisions small employers face, while respecting the differences between jurisdictions and the limits of our current data.

Annex: sources and records

1. Reseated internal data as of 26 October 2026: member and report totals, Team Council country counts, median amount at stake, reported situations, team sizes, and recent report count. These are internal records, not external estimates.

2. RC/TM/2026/N.1, Interim pattern review: the cost of a first hire, 13 October 2026. Records two of five tests met.

3. OECD, Taxing Wages 2026 country note for Germany. The figures cited are the OECD-average tax wedge for 2025 and the country figures listed in the note.¹

4. International Labour Organization, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises topic page. The global estimates cited are approximately 70% of employment and approximately 80% operating in the informal economy.²

5. Reseated timeline: introduction of the UK Late Payments Bill in the House of Lords, 19 May 2026. Mentioned solely as dated policy context.

Notes and sources

Sources

1. OECD, Taxing Wages 2026 country note: Germany
2. International Labour Organization, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises