Talk:Umbrella company

This page has been recently proposed for deletion (28 April 2024) by Greenish Pickle! (talk · contribs).

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

November 2006[edit]

Is Treasureguard an umbrella company? Looks like a composite to me, which is a different thing and legally questionable. wimbledon andy 11:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Reffering Link[edit]

Referring link added to acknowledge process image and reference for HMRC Dispensation. These references should not be deleted without deleting / completely replacing the original text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congregatio (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed comercial link[edit]

it's funny, I came here looking for information about umbrella companies (duh) and found a commercial link. I removed the link, but I contacted the company to see what they had to say - they're actually extremely helpful, and I'm signing up with them. this has shaken my "DON'T PUT COMMERCIAL LINKS ON WIKIPEDIA!" stance.... oh the irony.... Whitehatnetizen 03:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every week or so, one or another company puts a commerial link in refferences section. I hate that. 79.78.49.106 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, off site links are only justifiable when acknowledging work or media in support of the text. Careful consideration should be applied as to the added value to wikipedia V's the link effect. A balance of accurate information is essentail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congregatio (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added MSC legislation comment[edit]

I added the MSC legislation info as it is relevant to the forms of Umbrella Company used in the market. Not designed to be chapter and verse but might help! Shouter 10:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of umbrella companies should stay[edit]

Just noticed that some people are repeatedly removing the reffrece list of umbrella companies. This is infact the only non commerical unbiased list available and is a very handy reffrecne to contractors in UK. Few companies with commerical interest in mind, are trying to remove the list. Please protect the list add your openion. Open information is vital.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.254.170 (talk • contribs)

I've removed the list of external links and price schedules from the article, again, as this appears to simply be an uncited list of randomly selected links. If someone wants to create something with notable companies with specific inclusion criteria, please discuss here first. As it is, this is a simple pricing directory which does nothing to improve understanding of the topic of the article. Kuru ^talk 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not contribute creating such a list. instead of removing the starting point itslef ? Why remove in frist place ? If you feel it more looks like a price list, why not remove just the pricing information? But in my openion its completly in flow of the article, what is umbrella, how its diffrent from MSC. How do they charge ? followed by a comprehensive list, with thier charges and links to see themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.254.170 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Bullying removing some ones hard work and then asking to discuss first before adding creating it. What is the harm in seeing that just as a start and evolve it ? The list infact has many notable companies (Parasol, organge genie, Drole etc) and is intended to be the reffrence list. If you feel some others are notable want to add include it. There are only 100 odd such companies in UK and publication is less, hence citing is diffcult.

Discuss first and then remove, the list. Pleasy do not bully

How do you expect people to say what is a useful unbiased list without having one first ? Lets have the list first then evolve the list the way we feel appropriate. This list was an attempt in that direction. Agility is the key for all articles on wiki not the Governance, please keep this in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.137.16 (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re List of Umbrella Companies[edit]

This is with refrence to user User:77.101.254.170 response to the article. On message on my talk page just for refrence so that we can start discussing on this.

user User:77.101.254.170 response to removal of the list -------------------------

Hi Kate,

You have recently removed the list of umbrella companies under "Umbrella company" on the grouds that its a spam attractor and there are not even remotely notable companies on the list.

I feel both the reasons are unfair.

Regarding the first reason,

In fact this list was the only open, non biased reference list of umbrella companies for the contractors in UK. All others are biased commercial information available on net with the site owners have absolute control over information and that contractors can not trust. As a vindication to its usefulness, many contractors started using it, the Google page ranking very quickly improved from page 4 to page 1 , within few weeks.

Do you not think, open, unbiased information rendering is one of the objectives of wiki project ?

Given its value and alignment with wiki project goals, the reason potentail spam attractor is not good enough.

Regarding notable companies:

The list has many, like Parasol, Drole, Orange Genie, Nasa, Trafalgar contractor Soltions. Which are in UK market for quite few years and are well reputed. but the list did not just limit to notable companies as its intended to be reference list.

You may wish to take few opinions before removing the list. If some one has complained about the list, it should be the companies on first page of Google. Which is quite understandable. But please do not kill the open non biased information.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.137.16 (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding here to User:77.101.254.170's message on my talk page on 16/08/09, regarding my removal of the list of umbrella companies from this article. The reason I removed the list is because I felt it was spam and a violation of our guidelines on external links, specifically the section of links to be avoided. To choose some of the relevant "things to avoid":

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article

4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.

5. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.

This list is not a source of invaluable information. Twenty seconds with a search engine could provide anyone with a number of umbrella companies, and 10 seconds more would likely give one their rates, which is the only additional information this list provides. It is also indiscriminate. Who chooses which companies go on the list? I suspect that is based on which company's representatives edit the Wikipedia article. Having had a look at similar articles, they do not contain this information. I understand that work went into formatting the table etc. but phrases like "FREE 1 year trial: No Obligation " do not reassure me regarding its appropriateness. (Please note: I don't believe that simply removing this phrase, and others like it, will resolve the problems with it). I notice that a number of editors adding to this list appear to be affiliated to the companies they are adding; I suspect this is likely to be a long-term problem if the list remains. I also see that three different editors, User:Kuru, User:Redvers and myself have removed this list over the course of the past month. If some editors are interested in retaining the list, I would suggest a request for comment or perhaps a request for third opinion in order to come to a wider consensus on this matter. I would be happy to initiate either of these. Please let me know what you think, either here or on my talk page. --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 10:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

social insurance[edit]

Actually the worker pays their employer's national insurance contributions, which is offset by expenses. Someone being paid through an umbrella has to pay two lots of national insurance contributions - employees and employers. They also pay their employer's payroll costs!87.83.31.234 (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

come redch,not good.have people come in，help[edit]

come redch,not good.have people come in，help

                                            help no see cry ɴ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.32.30.190 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]