Hello,
I am wondering if you could tell me what you think of the differences between security companies (regulations, liability, state accountability) between Oregon and WA State.
I know that WA state has mandatory insurance for new start ups (I remember speaking to a person at the WA DOL number that deals with security companies and being told that the reason was because WA state was tired of unprofessional companies and that the state imposed the insurance requirements to help weed out some bad companies.) Several things I noticed was that it seemed:
1) You can't get a security company license without insurance
2) But you can't get insurance without a license
3) You can't have a site without a license
4) You can't have insurance for a site without a license
5) But you can't get a site without license and insurance
It seems that Oregon has no insurance requirements (mandatory for start ups) Now I am sure that each site, especially construction and professional sites will require insurance, I just found it interesting that the initial view seemed more streamlined for Oregon. Now I am not advocating by any stretch of the imagination the stupidity of not having insurance. It just seemed odd. I know in Massachusetts (it might have changed by now) you just paid 500 bucks for a bond and filed with the state police. At least it was clear.
So, comparing Oregon to WA state....which state is better to start a security company in? In your opinion.
I am wondering if you could tell me what you think of the differences between security companies (regulations, liability, state accountability) between Oregon and WA State.
I know that WA state has mandatory insurance for new start ups (I remember speaking to a person at the WA DOL number that deals with security companies and being told that the reason was because WA state was tired of unprofessional companies and that the state imposed the insurance requirements to help weed out some bad companies.) Several things I noticed was that it seemed:
1) You can't get a security company license without insurance
2) But you can't get insurance without a license
3) You can't have a site without a license
4) You can't have insurance for a site without a license
5) But you can't get a site without license and insurance
It seems that Oregon has no insurance requirements (mandatory for start ups) Now I am sure that each site, especially construction and professional sites will require insurance, I just found it interesting that the initial view seemed more streamlined for Oregon. Now I am not advocating by any stretch of the imagination the stupidity of not having insurance. It just seemed odd. I know in Massachusetts (it might have changed by now) you just paid 500 bucks for a bond and filed with the state police. At least it was clear.
So, comparing Oregon to WA state....which state is better to start a security company in? In your opinion.
Comment