> it would not have been possible to source local candidates, handle HR and payroll, understand local regulations, etc, without outside assistance
I have no dog in this fight, but I agree with the "smear campaign" that this is 100% bullshit. I work for a fully remote company with employees from all over the world, including Eastern Europe, and we didn't need to partner with any local company, let alone a competitor. Plus even if we need local HR assistance there are plenty of global/local HR services to choose from that focus on HR, no "employee sharing" needed.
I don't know if any other claims are false, but this kind of bullshit obvious to anyone who has been in a similar position undermines everything else they claim. Plus it was never mentioned what these "local partners" get in return, which seems to be the most interesting thing if there's no secret ownership, which is the thing they set out to debunk.
> I work for a fully remote company with employees from all over the world, including Eastern Europe, and we didn't need to partner with any local company
Because your company already has considerable experience in working remotely in another territory, of course they didn't need any help. Or potentially, they were already contracting a firm for local bureaucratic matters.
> Plus it was never mentioned what these "local partners" get in return
Money? They could sell these bureaucratic services at a markup, where they have experience with the paperwork etc. part of expanding internationally.
Additionally, another commenter said they offloaded some worse talent on them[1], so that's another possible benefit to them.
> Because your company already has considerable experience in working remotely in another territory, of course they didn't need any help.
What are you talking about, my company was fully remote with global employees from day one. And no, our CEO/CFO haven’t founded or worked for another fully remote company before that. This is not a radical concept at all, especially not here on HN.
A company operating fully remote with global employees still has to do some bureaucratic work with the countries of their employees for payroll purposes. That's what I meant by the experience they had with this.
I have no dog in this fight, but I agree with the "smear campaign" that this is 100% bullshit. I work for a fully remote company with employees from all over the world, including Eastern Europe, and we didn't need to partner with any local company, let alone a competitor. Plus even if we need local HR assistance there are plenty of global/local HR services to choose from that focus on HR, no "employee sharing" needed.
I don't know if any other claims are false, but this kind of bullshit obvious to anyone who has been in a similar position undermines everything else they claim. Plus it was never mentioned what these "local partners" get in return, which seems to be the most interesting thing if there's no secret ownership, which is the thing they set out to debunk.