ATTENTION: The glassBYTEs.com forum is being retooled and will return with a new look and functionality that will hopefully help our readers even more. Watch for an announcement when it will be ready, it will be a few months.
You can still stay up on daily news and comment on stories by signing up for the glassBYTEs daily e-newsletter at glass.com/subcenter. There is no charge. Hope to see you there!
The BS ends when you cease taking network crumbs from them and stop sending invoices to them instead of directly to your customers' insurance companies. It ends when you start treating them as your most formidable competitor and not your sovereign liege. Until then, you DESERVE all the sheeet you voluntarily allow them to dump on you.
I assume this means you're part of the network? Some insurance companies are starting to request that. Interesting that it's at a time when Ban the Box legislation is becoming more popular nationwide.
I assume this means you're part of the network? Some insurance companies are starting to request that. Interesting that it's at a time when Ban the Box legislation is becoming more popular nationwide.
Before I buy insurance, I always ask the agent if any of their honchos have recently been indicted for insurance fraud and I tell them they must check the box on the N.I.P.P.L.E. application before I will place my order with them. Hahahahahaha!!!!
If I understood the paperwork correctly, you just have to sign the printout and fax or send it back to them. It states in your contract with SGC you are agreeing to allow background checks for your employees if they ask you to do so. But for now they just want the signed paper on file. What I don't understand is if you signed the paperwork agreeing to the terms of the contract you would think that would cover all aspects.
If I understood the paperwork correctly, you just have to sign the printout and fax or send it back to them. It states in your contract with SGC you are agreeing to allow background checks for your employees if they ask you to do so. But for now they just want the signed paper on file. What I don't understand is if you signed the paperwork agreeing to the terms of the contract you would think that would cover all aspects.
Joe, what I don't understand is why you submit to these people in the first place. I guess your business is simply unable to survive without their beneficence. Safelite and Nancy Pelosi love you Joe. And Chelsea Clinton does too.
it is all about liability
if they are recommending you as an approved shop.
then you send your employee out to service a customer and you have never run a background check on your employee. (which is stupid)
lets say your employee is a puppy rap ist. then while on the job he has his way with a little puppy.
Now if you say you check your employees and say they wont
rob, steal or... hurt their puppy and then they do the liability is on you.
my god man is it that hard to understand.
Home Dsomething had people they sent out as subcontractors to install carpet for a customer and didn't check out the carpet guy and things didn't go so well for the female customer.
what process would you want a person checked out if that person was coming to YOUR home speaking to YOUR spouse or to your mothers house?
im sure the guy who has a hidden issue from their employer is going to tell me im wrong here.
but no logical person should object to BG check on people who go to customers homes. its the right thing to do.
only a person with something to hide would worry about a BG check.
Du, this may come as a totally disconcerting shock to you, but this troll completely understands why Safelite wants background checks on the employees of its fawning subservient slave dipwad network participants in order to protect its own precious butt. What I have the problem with is why the nimrods participate in the network of their s.o.b. miserable most formidable competitor.
The success of our company is based on repeat referrals from local insurance agents we have built relationships with over the years(No not by giving kickbacks but actual good customer service). In order for them to be in compliance with their company they have to use glass shops that are on the SGC network.
Joe, If you're happy with the crumbs they send you so be it. But you are part of the problem, not the solution. How hard is it to explain to your "loyal" agents that your largest competitor pays you crap with the intent of putting you out of business so that once they have the market sowed up they can raise their prices to a very profitable level? Truth is, your "loyal" agents will drop you like a hot potato if you don't play by their rules. Some of us figured this out years ago and made the choice to continue to market our services to our "loyal" customers, the car owners. I refuse to do work at prices that we charged 35 years ago.
Du, this may come as a totally disconcerting shock to you, but this troll completely understands why Safelite wants background checks on the employees of its fawning subservient slave dipwad network participants in order to protect its own precious butt. What I have the problem with is why the nimrods participate in the network of their s.o.b. miserable most formidable competitor.
I LIKE Carlos!
Du, you're right it's all about liability. It's all yours, and NONE theirs. What does that tell you?
And Joe: as to agent compliance, having to use shops on SGC's network?
Horsepucky. I DEFY anyone to show me an insurance policy that says that. If they didn't SELL it in the policy CONTRACT, they can't DELIVER it as a condition that isn't IN THE CONTRACT to the consumer/insured.
Repeat after me: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INSURANCE WORK. INSURERS DO NOT CONTRACT FOR REPAIRS TO INSURED'S PROPERTY. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN HMO OR PPO FOR YOUR CAR.
But hey, don't take my word for it, feel free to prove me wrong.
Until then, the quote most attributed to Henry Ford says it best: “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten.”
Actually, the thread went to contract compliance conditions regarding background checks, then went to enforcement of those contracts upon insureds.
I followed, politely, and stayed in the flow of contract compliance. I did not go into whether one should or should not be part of a network, a subject which the admin would likely pull.
And, you didn't answer any of my questions.
Essentially, my point is, your point is pointless, if we're going to be snippy.
does anyone here think of redemption and forgiveness. we are a bit of a rough group with different but eventful pasts . this should be on a case by case bases
does anyone here think of redemption and forgiveness. we are a bit of a rough group with different but eventful pasts . this should be on a case by case bases
I was thinking of joining the Safelite network, but when I demanded a background check on Tom Feeney first, they told me they would have to live without my participation.
Will this notion shake any brain impulses among the sheep? I suspect not.