Reviews

This profile includes reviews for Hunnex and Shoemaker Inc's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Hunnex and Shoemaker Inc has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Hunnex and Shoemaker Inc

  536 1st Ave S Seattle, WA 98104-2804

• 

  Hunnex and Shoemaker Inc

  PO Box 24629 Seattle, WA 98124

Review Details

• Review fromS. N.

  Date: 05/08/2023

  1 star

  S. N.

  Date: 05/08/2023

  I am a small business owner and CEO. ***** was recommended to me by our wealth advisor. Unfortunately, ***** has engaged with me with threats, a "cancel culture" mentality, and misogynistic gas lighting. He was not a good fit with a business owner - he may be better suited for dealing with day-to-day admins. While on the surface, you would think we are a good ********* business owner, and I have traveled to 29 countries/6 continents with my daughter, it has sadly worked out that as a white man he is not comfortable working with a female CEO.I do not recommend ***** or his team.

  Hunnex and Shoemaker Inc

  Date: 05/11/2023

  Hunnex & Shoemaker has served businesses of all sizes for over 40 years with retirement plan services. We pride ourselves on our excellent client relationships built over time and based on a sincere interest in the needs of each of our clients, including many female owned small businesses. Our company culture is characterized by respectful working relationships and prioritizing the well-being of our employees in each and every role with our company.
  
  As one small business to another, this review is disappointing because it is not a review at all but instead an unwarranted ad hominem attack that mischaracterizes the interaction with this potential client. Hunnex & Shoemaker, and its President ********************************* in particular, have established hundreds of successful client relationships with all kinds of owners (including many female CEOs) in every type and size of business. Our focus is on quality advisory work and excellent customer service.To support our work, we in turn support our employees regardless of race or gender with career opportunities and leadership roles.
  
  Unfortunately, the initial correspondence with this business owner (specifically correspondence directed to our female employees)demonstrated a pattern of rude and abusive conduct that Hunnex & Shoemaker does not tolerate necessitating that our President decline a client relationship with this business. Although it is disappointing that we were not able to provide the client-centered advisory services Hunnex & Shoemaker is known for because of the behavior of the business owner we wish her the best in her efforts to seek advisory services for a retirement plan.

  S. N.

  Date: 05/11/2023

  I have several third parties who have witnessed the email exchange in questions. I include our financial advisor's comments on ***** and his team at the end of this comment. ***** and ****** of Hunnex and Shoemaker reacted to me in a way that is unique to how they react to women versus if a man had typed my same messages. They consistently demonstrated a distaste for directness, which would not be a problem were they receiving the messages from a male CEO. These exchanges included the following:******** email: *****, see our qs on the census below:1.Unique Employee ID number (employees have numbers assigned in Bamboo but those do not show in ******* are these what they want?)2.Work Phone and Extension (says we can populate with Null for former EEs since unlikely we know their current work data)3.Work email (we wont have for non-** employees can we use personal email, if we have?)4.Personal email (not shown on ******* census but maybe in Bamboo though not sure fully populated there either. We may not have 100% of this information, is that ok?)5.YTD Hours worked this is something of a nuisance to calculate and only needed if hours are used to calculate eligibility / vesting which I do not believe is the case can you verify?Hunnex email: Hi In regards to the vesting hours of service are needed for those folks hired after 1/1/2017 ******** email: This says Years of service, which I can calculate. I cannot calcnate hours. Sent from my iPhone Hunnex email: Hi- Based on how the document is currently written; the years of service would need to be determined based on the number of years in which the participant has completed ***** hours of service. ******** email:Thanks, ******. As you are aware, all our employees are non-exempt. If you have issues working with me, you should move off my business. Hunnex email: ***, In regards to the email string below, ****** is letting you know that we will need to know hours worked as your current plan document (which we were not involved with) has a vesting schedule that is based on hours worked. Without being provided hours worked, there will be no way to determine years of service for vesting. All we are doing is assisting you in keeping your plan in compliance with the various laws and regulations. I agree with your statement below that you should find another TPA firm. Please do so.******** email:I dont have hours worked, so am asking for clarity on how I should report in that case. Hunnex email: ***,That is not what you said. You said that ****** should move off of your plan. I am agreeing with you that it would be best for you to find a tpa firm that you want to work with. We do not appear to be a good fit.You report hours worked to both state L&I and unemployment. Whoever is handling your payroll is entering hours worked. It is probably just based on a 40 hour work week. Again, we didnt right your previous document and the vesting schedule requires hours worked to be tracked. Our financial advisor, who introduced us to ************************************************ wrote the following to me, suggesting that ***** and team took offense when none was warranted: "I appreciate you ... I really do understand where you are coming from. My wife owns her own business as a landscape architect so she interacts with folks in the trades daily. Im sure we could swap offensive stories for hours. By the way, I dont take offense to any feedback you may have for me. I dont want to be deaf to the issue."

  S. N.

  Date: 05/12/2023

  Mr. Shoemaker's response is uneducated. Checking a box on the number of women who report to you, or thinking that women do not carry unconscious bias against female leaders is an uneducated and unscientific belief. There is nothing abusive or rude about my responses to the business - and they would not be perceived that way in the least had my words been typed by a man. Two months ago, I expressly let Hunnex, of whom I was the paying customer, know that I was taking all the administrative tasks on for my company for a temporary period given the macro economics of the time. And I expressly requested that communication with me be limited to weekly and digitally. Instead, ****** peppered me with questions, insisted on weekly phone calls. When I said I could not do the weekly phone calls and asked for a change in contact with our 401k to someone who would be ok with that - and be responsive the first time to my request - ****** pinned that as rude. When I sent one-line email responses to ******, answering her questions every time or asking for clarification, and her continued peppering of me with emails, she got exasperated with me. When I suggested maybe she, too, should not work with me, ***** stepped in. He called me names (see above), gaslit, and used the common double bind language of boiling me down to a "b*tch" and then rattling off how many women work for him or with him. His own defense belies his lack of education on his own unconscious bias and the unconscious bias of the team he has enculturated. ***** is a dime a dozen in terms of these attitudes, as my financial advisor pointed out to me. The good news out of the event is that my CFO was left howling with laughter when I shared the highly scientific studies around the double bind for female leaders with ***** and his team. ***** is not for me, nor is he for any woman who can say what she needs directly and without apology. He's uneducated about his own short sight, and I expect his whole company likely follows suit. There are plenty of TPAs to work with - I already have my new TPA, and she's great! - so if you care about sponsoring and promoting strong women, I would suggest you steer away from ***** and ************************************************ Giving them your dollar is a dollar too many toward unchecked bias and name calling. Lucky for me, my big tech clients love me and my team, and welcome strong females who state clearly what they need. The days of a business with attitudes like those of *********************************************** are numbered.