Use Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Team Council
Why TM-001 is becoming the Fair Hiring Cost Standard
1. The question behind TM-001
1. For a small business, taking on an employee can mean more than paying a wage. The owner must also understand and meet the costs and steps associated with formal employment. TM-001, the Team Council’s Fair Hiring Cost Standard, asks how those costs can be made lower, simpler and more predictable for a business’s first ten hires. Its stated measures are phased social contributions, one-stop payroll registration and predictable rules. The intended result is to make formal hiring more attainable for small employers.
2. The question is consequential beyond any one employer. The United Nations estimates that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises account for about 90% of businesses, 60–70% of employment and roughly half of global GDP. The ILO estimates that MSMEs account for about 70% of employment worldwide and that about 80% operate in the informal economy.12 These figures describe the broad importance of smaller firms and informality; they do not establish why any particular business hires informally, or prove that employment costs are the sole cause.
3. That distinction matters. TM-001 is not a claim that every small employer faces the same obstacle, or that one policy can be copied unchanged across countries. It is a proposal to test whether reducing the burden at the point where a small business begins hiring can help more owners employ people formally.
2. The development so far
4. The Team Council is examining a reported pattern: the costs and administrative demands of hiring. Its campaign includes a “First Ten Hires” cost diary and an employment-cost comparison. Those are evidence-gathering activities, not evidence that a particular reform has already been agreed or implemented.
5. Reseated’s process moves from reports to a five-part pattern test—Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration—before a draft fix, public consultation and Assembly ballot. If a proposal is adopted, letters go to the chief executives who could adopt it; the seats are tracked from proposed through delivered, replied and signed, or as an empty chair. This process is intended to distinguish a repeated problem from an isolated account, and a proposed fix from an adopted one.
6. The Team Council had passed two of the five pattern tests as of the 5 October data snapshot. The complete pattern test had therefore not yet been passed. TM-001 had not reached a completed draft, public consultation, Assembly ballot or adoption at that date. “Fair Hiring Cost Standard” is the working name of the proposal, not a claim that a standard is already in force.
7. The OECD’s *Taxing Wages 2026* provides one relevant comparison. It reports an OECD-average tax wedge of 35.1% for 2025. The country figures cited here are Germany at 49.3%, France at 47.2%, Italy at 45.8%, Spain at 41.4%, Sweden at 41.1%, the Netherlands at 35.9% and New Zealand at 20.8%.3 These figures help show that employment-cost conditions vary across national settings. They do not establish a specific small employer’s cost for a first, fifth or tenth hire, nor do they measure the time spent registering or administering payroll.
3. What Reseated’s data shows
8. The 5 October snapshot records 1,657 Reseated members in 49 countries and 5,086 reports from 50 countries. The different country totals refer to members and reports respectively. Across the seven councils, the report counts were: Platform 1,937; Cashflow 1,316; Fair Play 634; Trade 463; Resilience 296; Red Tape 278; and Team 162.
9. Within the Team Council, 111 members came from 38 countries, and 162 reports came from 41 countries. The difference between the number of members and the number of reporting countries is part of the snapshot; it should not be treated as a contradiction. The reports show geographic reach, but numbers alone do not establish that the experience is identical in every place.
10. Canada was the leading country by Team Council report count, with 26, followed by the United States with 20. Germany and Italy each had 12, the United Kingdom had 10, Mexico and India each had 7, and Brazil had 5. These are the top countries listed in the snapshot, not a complete country-by-country distribution.
11. The reported situations were classified as hiring-costs: 162 reports. The median amount at stake was approximately US$3,890. This is a median, not a total loss, annual cost, wage figure or estimate of what a policy change would save. The snapshot also records that 31 reports had been filed in the previous 30 days, indicating continued reporting at that point in time without proving a trend beyond the period reported.
12. Reported team sizes add useful context. Thirty-eight per cent of reports were from owners identifying as “Just me,” 43% from businesses with 2–9 people, 15% from those with 10–49, and 4% from those with 50–249. The figures describe the team-size categories in the reported material; they do not mean that every owner in a category faces the same cost or that all reports represent separate businesses.
4. What it means across countries
13. The OECD figures make clear why a single global price or contribution schedule would be an inadequate answer. The listed tax-wedge figures differ substantially, from 20.8% in New Zealand to 49.3% in Germany. That variation is a reason to compare costs in context, not a basis for ranking countries or declaring that one figure proves the cause of informality.
14. For an owner, the practical question is more specific: what must be paid, registered and administered when the business hires, and how does that experience change as the team grows from its first employee toward its tenth? A national average can offer a starting point for comparison, but it cannot substitute for a record of the actual cost faced by a particular business under the rules that apply to it.
15. The first-ten-hire focus also makes the proposed intervention bounded. TM-001 does not set out a contribution rate, eligibility threshold, phase-in schedule or model registration system. Those details would require evidence and design work. The council’s stated direction is to examine whether phased contributions, one-stop registration and predictable rules can lower friction for small employers while making formal hiring more feasible.
16. The ILO’s estimate that roughly 80% of MSMEs operate in the informal economy places the question in a wider setting, but it must be read carefully. It does not mean that 80% of MSMEs are informal because of hiring costs. TM-001 is one inquiry into a potential barrier; the council’s reports and tests must determine whether the pattern is sufficiently frequent, consistent, widespread and corroborated to support a proposed fix.
5. The council’s position
17. The Team Council’s position is to make formal employment more attainable for small employers, particularly across the first ten hires. Its proposed direction combines three ideas: phase social contributions rather than imposing the full burden at once; provide one-stop payroll registration rather than requiring owners to navigate disconnected steps; and make rules predictable so employers can plan their costs.
18. This is a policy direction, not a final design. The council has not set a universal contribution level or promised that any government or service provider will adopt the proposal. Nor is TM-001 an Assembly-adopted standard. The five-part test and later consultation and ballot are important safeguards: they give members and affected parties the opportunity to examine whether the evidence supports the proposed measures and whether they can work across different national systems.
19. The council should also keep the problem and the remedy distinct. A record of high costs may support the case for examining phased contributions, but it does not automatically prove that phasing is the right design. Reports about registration friction may point to a one-stop process, while evidence about uncertainty may support predictable rules. A credible
standard will need to connect each proposed measure to the pattern it is intended to address.
6. What owners can do
20. Owners who want to contribute can keep a cost diary for each hiring step, from deciding to recruit through registration and the first payroll. Record amounts and the point at which they arise, as well as time spent understanding, completing or correcting administrative steps. Where possible, distinguish wages from employment-related contributions and administrative costs. That separation can help show what the problem is, rather than combining different burdens into one figure.
21. The comparison should follow the campaign’s first-ten-hire focus. Owners can note how costs and steps change between the first hire and later hires, rather than reporting only a single snapshot. If comparing countries, record the jurisdiction and the date of the rules consulted; do not assume that a cost or process observed in one country applies in another. A reported amount should be identified as an estimate, payment, or amount at stake, as appropriate.
22. Owners can also describe the practical effect without overstating it: whether a cost delayed a planned hire, changed the number of people hired, or made formal employment harder to manage. These are useful distinctions for evidence review. A personal account should not be presented as proof of a universal outcome, and no owner needs to name their business in a report. Reseated members remain anonymous unless they choose a public seat.
23. Finally, owners can follow the proposal’s status and take part when a draft is opened for consultation. At this stage, the useful contribution is evidence that can be checked and compared—not a claim that TM-001 has already changed employment rules. If the pattern test supports a draft, consultation and a ballot will provide later opportunities to assess the design.
This document has no standing until adopted under the Founders Charter. Reseated Councils is not affiliated with the United Nations.