Date:         Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:43:45 -0700
Reply-To:     John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Exciting things happening at Van-Again!
In-Reply-To:  <11dcddf8050916064446464edd@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> 
> 
> Tell me you are charging time and stick to it, tell me you are
> charging book at stick to it. Do not tell me you are charging time and
> then switch to book because book was higher.


Lord help me, I gotta somewhat agree with RC on this one. I do, however, see 
your point also. The problem is that no one should ever tell the customer 
"it only took me 1.5 hours, but I'm billing you for 2 because that's what 
the book says". The only reasonable way to present it is "we bill [whatever 
job] at 2 hours, but this assumes there are no complications. Time spent on 
things like drilling out and replacing broken studs is additional. This is 
an old car." Book time is also used as a baseline for time blocking. Sure, 
you'd like the benefit of them charging T&M if the tech has an easy time of 
it and does a 3 hour job in 2 hours, but the shop has to assume beforehand 
that it's going to take him 3 and schedule accordingly. Since most shops 
have a single hourly rate and the skill level of their techs might vary 
widely (thus varying the time it takes), they gotta bill by the book.
An honest shop will usually give you the minimum it'll run (book time, 
often), the worst-case scenario, and the most likely outcome, which'll fall 
in the middle somewhere. I agree that unilaterally billing for hours beyond 
the book time is crappy, as then the LESS competent the tech, the MORE you 
pay; but I can't find fault with billing for time eaten up by complications 
incidental to the basic job-- so long as fair warning is goven beforehand.