SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (48628)2/17/2006 2:00:06 AM
From: Amy JRead Replies (1) of 306849
 
Elroy/Grace/Chris, I don't see a need for a bonded worker from the perspective of a worker that injures him/herself, when you've already got an umbrella policy (unless I'm misunderstanding something.)

When I bought my umbrella policy the agent said I don't need to worry if a worker is bonded from the perspective of an injury because the umbrella insurance covers it, so I always hired a non-bonded worker since they are cheaper (because I'm not interested in having their work performance insured.)

My understanding of a bonded worker, is the bond guarantees the performance of the job (that it gets done, etc.), but doesn't protect you from being sued by them for injury (which is where an umbrella policy kicks in).

We have a bond at work (which we pay to Hartford? or some insurance company) which protects us in case our company's 401k suddenly is stolen by an employee. What is really nonsense (at least to me) is how the insurance companies want you to pay for a line-item in case the BANK's employee steals your 401k funds. Why should we pay for that, the bank should - leave it to the banking industry to find a way to shed their own issues onto others and make others pay what should be their insurance bill. In Q4, Ameritrade lost an entire quarter's worth of corporate 401k checks that was for our employees 401k accounts - can you believe it? They received the checks but sat on them for almost three months without depositing them into people's accounts - the checks are "lost" is what they said. And you could send them another check, but they'd lose that too. They eventually found them all and acknowledged their error. But it creates a bit of a trust issue. And now it takes them 4 weeks to process a payment and our accountant has to call them all the time (otherwise the checks will sit in la-la-land at their offices) - something is wrong with that company. They never used to be this way.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News