Good point. Although if they're required to be bonded as part of the job requirements, that means they still don't feel the full effect of the cost of their mistakes which is what I think was being proposed. That said, it's a lot closer along that spectrum because I assume their ability to be bonded/insured will be affected by subsequent claims against the bond.

I'm also not sure exactly how bonding would work in jobs where blame is hard to determine, or not attributable to a single individual (ie systemic issue). Perhaps that's one of the reasons it's not done more commonly.