2026 Guide to the Best EOR and Talent Platforms for Hiring Developers in Latin America
Your CFO just asked why you're paying three different vendors to hire eight developers across Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. Your Head of Legal wants to know who actually owns the code those developers are writing. And your board is questioning whether the contractor arrangements in Argentina will survive an audit.
Sound familiar?
European mid-market companies are discovering that Latin America offers exactly what they need: senior engineering talent with strong international experience, workable time-zone overlap with London and Berlin, and cost structures that don't require Series C funding to sustain. But the path from "we should hire in LATAM" to "we have a compliant, IP-protected engineering team in LATAM" is littered with vendor fragmentation, unclear liability, and employment model decisions that nobody seems qualified to advise on.
This guide cuts through the noise. You'll find a strategic framework for choosing between EOR platforms, talent marketplaces, and local entities, along with the IP protection and compliance architecture that European companies in regulated industries actually need. No vendor rankings dressed up as objective analysis. No promises that any single platform solves everything. Just the decision criteria and operational realities that matter when you're building engineering capacity across borders.
Key Takeaways For Hiring Developers In Latin America With EOR Talent Platforms
An Employer of Record (EOR) is a third-party organisation that becomes the legal employer of a worker in a specific country, running local payroll, statutory benefits, tax withholding, and employment compliance while the client directs day-to-day work. This model has become the default entry point for European companies hiring developers in Latin America without establishing local entities.
Here's what you need to know before diving into platform selection:
- EOR talent platforms can help European mid-market companies hire developers compliantly in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia by handling local employment contracts, payroll in local currency, statutory benefits, and termination procedures. The EOR assumes legal employer status while you retain operational control over the work.
- Strong IP protection requires more than a checkbox on a vendor contract. You'll need explicit present and future assignment of inventions, consistency between your master agreement and each local employment contract, and operational controls like company-owned repositories and access management.
- The decision between contractors, EOR, and local entities isn't binary. Most scaling companies use all three models simultaneously across different markets, which is precisely why you need a coherent framework rather than ad-hoc vendor relationships.
- European mid-market companies face specific considerations that US-focused EOR guides ignore: GDPR-level data protection requirements for LATAM employee data, board expectations around audit readiness, and the need to reconcile UK/EU employment standards with Latin American statutory requirements.
- Equity compensation for EOR employees is possible but requires careful coordination. The EOR doesn't issue equity; your company grants options or RSUs under your global plan while the EOR handles local payroll reporting.
- Realistic onboarding timelines depend more on your internal preparation than vendor promises. Contract generation can happen in days once your EOR relationship is established, but sourcing, approvals, and country-specific registrations often determine actual start dates.
Why European Mid Market Companies Use Employer Of Record In Latin America
UK employers typically pay Class 1 secondary National Insurance at 13.8% above the secondary threshold, a payroll cost that Teamed recommends modelling when comparing UK employment to EOR-based hiring abroad. When you add statutory holiday entitlements, pension contributions, and the competitive salaries required to attract senior developers in London or Amsterdam, the total employment cost for a mid-level engineer can exceed £90,000 annually, compared to US $63,000–72,000 for similar roles in Latin America.
Latin America offers a different equation. Strong technical talent pools have emerged in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia over the past decade, with over 2 million developers across the region who have extensive experience working with North American and European companies. The time-zone overlap matters more than many European companies initially realise: a developer in São Paulo or Mexico City can participate in afternoon standups with Berlin and still have productive morning hours for focused work.
But cost arbitrage isn't the primary driver for sophisticated European buyers, even as the region's IT outsourcing market reached US $70.8 billion in 2024. The real value lies in access to talent that simply isn't available domestically. When your product roadmap depends on adding 15 engineers in the next six months and your London recruiting pipeline is producing two qualified candidates per quarter, LATAM becomes a strategic necessity rather than a cost-saving exercise, particularly given that remote hiring surged 285% between 2020 and 2024.
An Employer of Record (EOR) differs from a Professional Employer Organisation (PEO) in an important way. PEOs typically operate as co-employers within a single country, sharing employment responsibilities with your company. EORs become the sole legal employer in the target jurisdiction, which creates cleaner liability separation for cross-border hiring. For European companies without existing entities in Latin America, EOR is almost always the appropriate model.
The compliance dimension drives much of the EOR adoption among regulated European companies. Boards and investors expect documentation, audit trails, and defensible employment structures. Contractor arrangements that worked at 50 employees become liability concerns at 200. Financial services, healthcare, and defence companies face additional scrutiny that makes EOR's compliance wrapper particularly valuable.
How EOR Talent Platforms Support Compliance When Hiring Developers In Latin America
Contractor misclassification is a legal and tax risk that arises when a worker treated and paid as an independent contractor is deemed, by law or enforcement authorities, to be an employee based on control, integration, and economic dependence tests. This risk has intensified across Latin American jurisdictions, with enforcement agencies increasingly scrutinising arrangements where contractors work exclusively for one company, use company systems, and receive ongoing direction rather than delivering discrete projects.
The EOR model addresses misclassification by establishing a clear employment relationship. Your developers are employees of the EOR entity in their country, with proper employment contracts, statutory benefits, and tax withholding. The EOR takes on several responsibilities that would otherwise require your own local entity.
Local employment contracts and offer letters drafted to comply with Mexican, Brazilian, Argentine, or Colombian law. Payroll processing in local currency with proper statutory deductions. Social security contributions, mandatory benefits like Brazil's 13th salary, and country-specific leave entitlements. Guidance on compliant termination procedures, which vary significantly across LATAM jurisdictions.
Your company retains responsibility for day-to-day management, performance expectations, workplace culture, and data protection standards. This split creates a workable division of labour: the EOR handles employment compliance mechanics while you focus on building and managing your team.
One distinction matters more than most buyers realise. EORs that own their own legal entities in LATAM markets operate differently from those that rely on third-party partners. When an EOR owns the local entity directly, they assume employment liability entirely, giving your company cleaner legal separation. Partner-based models can create ambiguity about who bears employment claims risk and who controls the employment relationship.
Some EOR platforms now use AI for contract generation and compliance alerts. For routine matters, this automation can accelerate onboarding. But European companies in regulated industries should confirm that named human legal oversight remains available for complex situations, including sensitive terminations, regulatory disputes, and employment model transitions.
Protecting Intellectual Property With EOR Providers For Developers In Latin America
Intellectual property (IP) assignment is a contractual mechanism that transfers ownership of work product and inventions created by a worker to the company, usually requiring country-specific language and formalities to be enforceable. Without explicit assignment, IP can default to the individual developer under some Latin American legal frameworks, which creates unacceptable risk for technology companies.
Most EOR listicles don't explain how European legal teams should reconcile IP assignment language across three layers: the company NDA, the EOR employment agreement, and local statutory rules on employee inventions. This gap leaves mid-market companies exposed during due diligence, audits, or M&A processes.
The core issue is jurisdictional variation. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia each apply different rules regarding what work products constitute "inventions" subject to employment law versus general work product. A contract clause that's enforceable in Mexico may be insufficient in Argentina. Your EOR's standard employment contract may not include the specific IP assignment language your company requires.
Required contract elements for robust IP protection include present and future assignment of inventions and work product to your company (not just the EOR), moral rights waiver or management where applicable, confidentiality and invention disclosure obligations, and consistency between your master EOR agreement and each local employment contract.
Operational safeguards matter as much as contract language. Company-owned repositories and accounts prevent ambiguity about where code lives. Least-privilege access controls limit exposure. Clear contribution flows document who created what. Centralised IP registers and periodic audits verify that your assignment chain remains intact. An offboarding IP checklist ensures that departing developers don't leave with unclear ownership of their work.
Consider a European SaaS company with EOR employees in Brazil and Colombia building core product features. Investor scrutiny during a Series B round will examine whether the IP chain is clean across jurisdictions. If the Brazilian employment contract lacks explicit assignment language, or if the Colombian developer's NDA conflicts with their EOR employment agreement, the company faces either renegotiation delays or valuation haircuts.
Choosing An Employer Of Record In Latin America For Companies Above 50 Employees
EU GDPR administrative fines can reach €20,000,000 or 4% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. This exposure shapes how European companies should evaluate EOR platforms, particularly regarding data processing terms, cross-border transfer mechanisms, and security controls.
Selection criteria for mid-market companies extend well beyond headline pricing. Local presence and entity ownership in your priority markets determines liability clarity and response time. Depth of legal and compliance support matters, including whether you get named advisors or ticket-based support. Language capability affects both contract quality and employee experience. Integration with your existing HRIS and finance stack reduces operational friction.
IP and invention assignment strength deserves particular scrutiny. Request sample contract templates for Mexico and Brazil. Examine the IP clauses specifically. Ask who owns the employing entity and how terminations are handled. Verify that data processing agreements meet GDPR standards, including Standard Contractual Clauses for transfers from the EEA/UK to non-adequate jurisdictions.
The ability to support eventual migration to owned entities matters for companies with growth trajectories. If your LATAM headcount might reach 30 or 50 in a single country, you'll want an EOR partner who can advise on entity establishment timing and help execute the transition without disrupting your team.
Pricing requires looking beyond headline per-employee fees. Long-term total cost includes benefits administration, currency conversion fees, add-on services, and the operational cost of managing the relationship. A £50 monthly difference in per-employee fees becomes material at 40 employees, but hidden costs in benefits or FX can easily exceed that difference.
Red flags to watch for include opaque pricing structures with heavy add-on fees, no clear IP language in local contracts, all-partner models with unclear liability allocation, limited integrations or weak security posture, and support models that route everything through chatbots before reaching humans.
Traditional EOR Services In Latin America Compared With Modern Talent Platforms
A talent platform for international hiring is a technology-led service that sources, verifies, and matches candidates across borders and may optionally integrate with an EOR for employment, but it is not automatically the legal employer. This distinction matters because it affects liability, IP ownership, and the nature of your relationship with the workers.
Traditional EOR services in Latin America focus on the legal employer function. You source and vet candidates through your own recruiting process. The EOR handles employment contracts, payroll, benefits, and compliance. This model works well for companies with strong internal talent acquisition capability who need compliant employment infrastructure without the overhead of local entities.
Modern talent platforms bundle sourcing with employment. They maintain databases of pre-vetted LATAM developers, handle initial screening, and often provide ATS functionality and time-tracking tools. Some operate their own EOR infrastructure; others partner with third-party EORs for the employment layer.
The bundled model can accelerate hiring when you're building capacity quickly. But it introduces considerations that traditional EOR arrangements avoid. Platform incentives may favour their own talent pipelines over your specific requirements. Vendor lock-in can develop when your developers are sourced, employed, and managed through a single platform. And the IP ownership chain may be less clear when workers move between clients on the same platform.
An EOR differs from a talent platform because an EOR is the legal employer on local payroll, while a talent platform primarily facilitates sourcing and onboarding workflows and may not assume employment liability.
For European mid-market companies, the choice often depends on internal recruiting capacity. A 300-person company with a dedicated talent acquisition team may prefer traditional EOR services that integrate with their existing sourcing process. A 150-person company with lean HR may benefit from a platform that handles both sourcing and employment, accepting the trade-offs in exchange for speed.
Comparing Employer Of Record And Staff Augmentation In LATAM For Engineering Teams
Staff augmentation is a service model where an external provider supplies personnel to a client team under a services arrangement, typically with the provider controlling employment and often delivery management rather than the client employing the worker. This model differs fundamentally from EOR employment in ways that affect control, IP, and long-term team building.
Staff augmentation differs from EOR employment because staff augmentation typically packages personnel with service delivery management and commercial output commitments, while EOR employment keeps day-to-day delivery management inside the client organisation.
With EOR employment, you hire specific individuals who become part of your team. You manage their work directly, integrate them into your systems and culture, and build long-term relationships. The EOR handles employment mechanics, but the developer works for you in every practical sense.
Staff augmentation provides capacity rather than specific individuals. The provider employs or contracts engineers and assigns them to your projects, often with their own delivery management layer. Workers may rotate between clients. Your control over hiring decisions, performance management, and retention is limited.
IP clarity is stronger with EOR employment when combined with direct assignment to your company. Staff augmentation arrangements require extra diligence because workers may create IP for multiple clients, and the assignment chain runs through the staffing provider rather than directly to you.
Cultural integration runs deeper with EOR employees who work exclusively for your company over extended periods. Staff augmentation suits burst capacity needs, overflow QA, or short-term projects where deep integration isn't required.
The practical guidance: use EOR for core product developers who will build and maintain critical systems. Use staff augmentation for time-bounded projects, specialised skills needed temporarily, or capacity overflow during peak periods. Many companies use both models simultaneously, which requires clear internal policies about which roles fit which model.
Evaluating EOR Platforms And Top EOR Companies For Latin American Hiring
Most competitor content blurs the distinction between staff augmentation and EOR employment, leaving buyers without a clear liability map for who controls supervision, who bears employment claims risk, and who owns deliverables by default. This section provides the evaluation framework that vendor comparison lists typically omit.
Common shortlist names include Deel, Remote, Oyster, Multiplier, and G-P, among others. But brand recognition matters less than fit for your specific situation. The evaluation dimensions that actually differentiate providers include local entity ownership versus partner networks in your target LATAM markets, strength of IP and invention assignment language in local contracts, benefits design capability and country-specific nuance, support model (proactive advisory versus reactive ticketing), balance of automation and named human advisors, pathways to migrate from EOR to owned entities, and pricing transparency including all fees and add-ons.
Sample due-diligence questions to ask providers:
For Mexico: Show me your employer of record Mexico contract templates and IP clauses. How do you handle termination procedures under Mexican labour law?
For Brazil and Argentina: Who owns the employing entity in each country? What's your process for handling terminations, including severance calculations and notice periods?
For data protection: Provide your GDPR-level Data Processing Agreement. What Standard Contractual Clauses do you use for transfers from the EEA? Where is employee data stored and who has access?
For equity: How do you process and report equity compensation for EOR employees? What documentation do you provide for tax purposes?
Most EOR vendor comparisons omit audit-readiness specifics, such as which documents must be produced within days for an internal audit. Ask providers what documentation they maintain and how quickly they can produce contract chains, DPAs, SCCs, and proof of right-to-work verification.
Teamed's analysis of mid-market employment patterns shows that companies often evaluate EOR providers based on marketing claims rather than operational realities. A structured discovery process that validates claims with country-specific questions reveals significant differences between providers that appear similar on feature lists.
EOR Onboard Engineer LATAM Time Frame And Practical Hiring Steps
UK employers must provide a written statement of employment particulars from day one of employment, which creates a fixed compliance deliverable that HR teams often mirror when using EORs to standardise onboarding. Latin American jurisdictions have their own documentation requirements, but the principle holds: employment relationships require proper paperwork before work begins.
The practical stages for hiring developers in Latin America through an EOR follow a predictable sequence:
- Define role requirements, target location(s), and compensation band
- Select EOR provider and execute master service agreement and order forms
- Source and select candidates through your recruiting process or platform sourcing
- Draft and agree offer terms, including local employment contract review
- Complete required registrations and background checks per country requirements
- Add employee to payroll and benefits systems; provision equipment and access
- Process first payroll and confirm post-start compliance requirements
Contract generation can happen quickly once your EOR relationship is established. Some providers generate compliant employment contracts in under a day. But the overall timeline depends on factors outside the EOR's control: your internal approval workflows, candidate sourcing and selection, country-specific registration requirements, and equipment logistics.
Acceleration preparation for European teams includes standardised LATAM salary bands and role templates, pre-approved IP and confidentiality terms with DPA addenda, defined approval workflows with clear decision rights, and onboarding checklists covering tools, security, policies, and team introductions.
Consider a European company coordinating multiple Mexico hires to align with a major product release. The EOR can generate contracts quickly, but if internal approvals take two weeks and equipment shipping takes another week, the actual start date extends well beyond the contract generation timeline. Realistic planning accounts for all dependencies, not just vendor speed.
Handling Equity And Stock Option Grants For LATAM Hires Through EOR Platforms
UK statutory minimum paid holiday entitlement is 5.6 weeks per year for employees, equivalent to 28 days for a full-time five-day worker. This benchmark often serves as a comparator when European companies design benefits packages for LATAM hires, including equity compensation that supplements local statutory benefits.
EORs don't issue equity. Your company grants options, RSUs, or phantom equity under your global equity plan. The EOR assists with local payroll reporting and documentation, but the cap table relationship runs directly between your company and the employee.
Issues to resolve before granting equity to EOR employees include eligibility confirmation (does your plan permit non-entity employees?), vesting schedules and cliff periods, treatment on termination or transfer to a local entity, tax handling per country with clear employee communications, and securities or FX controls in certain markets.
Your internal checklist should confirm that your equity plan permits grants to EOR employees, add country appendices addressing local tax treatment, align grant documentation with local employment contracts and IP terms, define portability when migrating from EOR to local entity, and coordinate payroll and tax reporting with the EOR and local advisors.
Consider granting options to a senior engineer in Brazil via EOR. The grant flows from your company's equity plan. The Brazilian employment contract through the EOR should reference the equity arrangement. Brazilian counsel should advise on tax treatment at grant, vesting, and exercise. The EOR handles payroll reporting for any taxable events. This coordination requires planning but is entirely workable with proper preparation.
Compliance Risks For European Mid Market Companies Using EOR Providers In Latin America
Under EU GDPR, cross-border transfers of personal data from the EEA/UK to non-adequate jurisdictions typically require Standard Contractual Clauses and a transfer risk assessment, which impacts how HRIS and EOR platforms handle LATAM employee data. Any developer hired through an EOR in Latin America is a data subject under GDPR if they have any connection to EU operations or clients.
EOR arrangements reduce but don't eliminate compliance risk. The main risk categories for European companies include:
Mixed model confusion. When contractors and EOR employees coexist without clear policy, misclassification risk increases. A contractor arrangement that made sense before EOR adoption may now look like an attempt to avoid employment obligations.
Permanent establishment exposure. Substantive business activities in a country may trigger taxable presence even with EOR arrangements. If your LATAM developers are making strategic decisions, managing client relationships, or representing your company in ways that go beyond technical work, consult tax advisors about PE risk.
Data protection gaps. Cross-border HR data must meet GDPR-level standards. Ensure your EOR provides adequate DPAs and SCCs. Verify data residency and access controls. Remember that employee personal data, including payroll information, performance reviews, and communications, falls under GDPR requirements.
Employment law exposure. Local courts can look through structures if employment practices are unfair. An EOR doesn't insulate you from liability if you're directing terminations in ways that violate local law or discriminating against EOR employees compared to direct hires.
Internal governance gaps. Over-reliance on vendors without periodic legal reviews creates blind spots. Your EOR handles day-to-day compliance, but your company remains responsible for employment strategy, policy alignment, and oversight.
The lens for European CFOs and Heads of Legal: apply EU standards to your employer of record Latin America partners. Expect the same documentation, audit readiness, and compliance rigour you'd require from a UK or EU vendor.
Designing An IP And Compliance Framework For Distributed Teams Across Europe And Latin America
Most EOR listicles don't provide a board-ready decision gate that ties contractor-to-EOR-to-entity graduation to specific risk triggers such as IR35 exposure, GDPR transfer obligations, and termination cost predictability for UK/EU headquartered companies. This section provides the framework that sophisticated European companies need.
Framework components for a reusable operating model include:
Policy layer. Define when to use contractors, EOR, and entities. Establish LATAM-specific guidance that accounts for local enforcement trends and your risk tolerance. Document decision criteria so employment model choices are consistent and defensible.
Template layer. Standardise IP assignment, confidentiality, data protection, and invention disclosure agreements. Localise per country with counsel review. Maintain version control so you know which templates are in use where.
Systems layer. Create a single source of truth for EOR agreements, employment contracts, NDAs, and equity grants. Ensure audit-ready records that can be produced within days if needed. Track expiration dates, renewal terms, and amendment history.
Governance layer. Establish a cross-functional working group including People, Legal, Finance, and Engineering to oversee providers, employment model decisions, and IP compliance. Define escalation paths for complex situations.
Review cadence. Revisit the framework as markets and headcount grow. Evaluate whether EOR arrangements should transition to entities based on concentration, cost, and strategic factors rather than arbitrary thresholds.
Consider a European company with EU entities plus LATAM EOR hires. Without a framework, each new hire in a new country triggers ad-hoc decisions about contracts, IP, and data protection. With a framework, the decision criteria are clear, the templates are ready, and the governance process ensures consistency.
When Mid Market Companies Should Move From Traditional EOR Services To Local Entities In Latin America
A local entity is a company's own registered legal presence in a country that can directly employ staff, register for payroll taxes, and sign local employment contracts without using an EOR. Entity establishment represents a significant commitment but may become the right choice as your LATAM presence matures.
Triggers to consider an entity include significant concentration of engineers in one country (often 15-30+ in a single market), hiring local leadership or needing local commercial registrations, benefits customisation beyond EOR standard offerings, and regulatory or customer demands for local presence.
Transition planning steps when moving from EOR to entity:
Map employee experience. Determine whether employees will transfer to the new entity or be rehired. Preserve tenure where possible under local law. Communicate early and clearly about what changes and what stays the same.
Ensure IP continuity. Re-execute assignments and confidentiality agreements without gaps. The transition shouldn't create ambiguity about who owns work product created before, during, or after the move.
Align benefits and equity. Ensure that benefits transfer appropriately and that equity grants remain valid. Document any changes and communicate them to affected employees.
Design corporate and tax structure. Work with advisors to structure the entity appropriately. Plan payroll cut-over carefully to avoid gaps or duplicate payments.
Engage vendor support. Your EOR and advisors should support phased migration with clear timelines. Don't attempt this transition without experienced guidance.
The decision to establish an entity should be based on strategy and risk, not just unit cost comparisons. A European software firm with a large Mexico hub via employer of record Mexico might find that entity establishment makes sense at 25 employees even though the per-employee cost difference is modest, because the strategic benefits of local presence outweigh the administrative overhead.
Building A Long Term Latin America Hiring Strategy With Teamed As Your Global Employment Advisor
Choose an EOR when the worker will be integrated into core product delivery, will require line management, or will use company systems in a way that makes contractor-style independence difficult to defend in an audit. Choose a local entity when the company expects sustained hiring in one country and needs direct control over employment terms, local registrations, and bank/payment flows that are hard to standardise through multiple EORs.
The challenge for European mid-market companies isn't choosing a single EOR platform. It's building a coherent employment strategy across contractors, EOR, and entities in multiple markets, with consistent IP protection, GDPR-compliant data handling, and governance that satisfies boards and auditors.
Teamed works with mid-market companies to design and sequence employment models across Europe and LATAM. Rather than pushing a single solution, Teamed helps you determine the right model for each market and each stage of growth. Selection and consolidation of EOR providers. IP-strong contracts aligned to EU-grade compliance. Board-ready frameworks that document your employment strategy rationale.
The value isn't in replacing human judgment with automation. It's in having one strategic partner who understands your industry's regulatory landscape, your growth trajectory, and the specific compliance requirements that matter for your business. When you're deciding between contractors and EOR in Mexico, evaluating entity establishment in Brazil, and navigating misclassification risks in Argentina, you shouldn't need to piece together advice from vendors with conflicting incentives.
Talk to the experts for tailored guidance on your LATAM hiring strategy.
FAQs About EOR Talent Platforms For Hiring Developers In Latin America
How do we move existing contractors in Latin America onto an EOR without increasing our compliance risk?
Run a structured review of contractor roles to identify which arrangements look like employment under local law. Convert employment-like roles with clear forward-looking employment contracts through your EOR. Avoid retroactive admissions of misclassification. Ensure IP assignments and benefits continuity transfer cleanly to the new employment relationship.
What happens to our developers if we decide to switch from one EOR provider to another in Latin America?
Typically either entity-to-entity transfers or terminate-and-rehire arrangements. Plan carefully to protect employee rights under local law, preserve IP assignments without gaps, and ensure continuous service and payroll. The transition period requires coordination between outgoing and incoming providers.
How do EOR contracts interact with our existing NDAs and invention assignment agreements?
Align your company NDAs and invention assignments with EOR employment contracts to ensure no conflicts. The EOR employment contract should reference or incorporate your IP terms. Maintain a complete document stack per employee for clean IP chains during audits or due diligence.
Can we consolidate EOR arrangements across Latin America, Europe and other regions under one strategic advisory partner?
Many mid-market firms execute with a small vendor set while using a strategic advisor to design the employment model, select providers, and maintain consistent IP and compliance frameworks globally. This approach reduces vendor sprawl while preserving flexibility to use best-fit providers in each market.
What is mid market and why does it matter for choosing an EOR strategy?
Mid-market typically means 200-2,000 employees or revenue in tens to hundreds of millions. These companies need governance, audit readiness, and vendor consolidation but lack enterprise resources for dedicated global employment counsel. EOR strategy for mid-market differs from startup approaches (which can tolerate more risk) and enterprise approaches (which have internal resources to manage complexity).
Do we still need local legal advice if we use an EOR platform in Latin America?
EORs cover day-to-day employment guidance, but independent counsel remains valuable for restructures, sensitive terminations, equity design, and EOR-to-entity transitions. Your EOR handles operational compliance; local counsel provides strategic advice on complex situations and validates that EOR arrangements meet your specific requirements.
How quickly can a European mid market company start hiring developers in Latin America through an EOR?
Timeline depends on provider readiness, internal preparation, and country-specific requirements. Contract creation can happen in days once your EOR relationship is established. But internal approvals, candidate sourcing, background checks, and equipment logistics often determine actual start dates. Allow 2-4 weeks from offer acceptance to first day for realistic planning.
