Date:         Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:31:41 -0500
Reply-To:     Bostig Eng <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Bostig Eng <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject:      Re: Moral question
In-Reply-To:  <7.0.1.0.2.20070116212727.05c863d8@iglide.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I've worked as a tech in dealerships and independent shops, as well as my
own. It isn't a moral question so much as a game strategy question. The
others in these situations are generally not asking themselves the moral
question, and as such if you do you will likely lose most of the time(maybe
you did the right thing, but got screwed while trying to do it), so you have
to ask also "should I even ask the moral question, or does simply playing
their own game make it fair enough?"

Case #1: He should not be paid. If he does not have the skill needed to
either complete the job, or doesn't know enough to turn down the job because
he knows it can't be done, no money. The customer should never be paying for
a shop/tech learning curve UNLESS they know that is happening up front and
are ok with that. That's really the only reason "book" numbers like alldata,
mitchell, etc are useful to everyone. You have some number in mind ahead of
time as to what is acceptable(sometimes it's not a good number at all,
either too long, or too short but at least there is a number).  He put in
the time yes, but failed at his own job for any number of reasons. No
payment.

Case #2:  Again, failed at his own job. Should not be paid. If he is a
"professional" which is modern parlance for "incapable of performing another
job" he should at least know how to do his own job, even if it throws him a
nasty curve out of his control.

It's tough because these things need to be evaluated case by case with full
information, but it is usually the case that there is a gap in the
information understood by each party. In such an instance, it is very
possible and quite likely the party with the information will take advantage
of the party lacking the information.  I've seen it done in my time while
working as a tech in stealerships, and in my time working as a software
engineer. It is a universal problem, but the auto repair industry has been
screwing people for much longer, and on a wide wider scale. Stealership
service departments are architected for one purpose. To extract as much
money from both the customer and the OEM as quickly as possible, period.
Techs are shielded by service managers, service managers are protected by
the lack of information the customer usually has, as well as the brand
itself. A dealership can lose a customer as the brand and dealership status
are what bring in new customers, not a good individual reputation which
small shops must build(unless they are getting by on location alone). They
extract money from the OEMs doing unneeded warranty work, sometimes without
the customer knowing, or in fact not doing the actual warranty work and just
charging for it. The OEMs have to pay because they need to sell new cars,
and as long as the dealership takes the rap for screwing the customer if it
ever comes to that, they don't care.  What should happen is that all repair
and warranty work should be taken away from dealers, and given to
independent shops that can prove themselves worthy and then be linked to the
OEM. That way small shops could specialize and get guaranteed work without
having the issues of interest as the dealer. But it won't happen soon
because there is too much money being made, and no way to make it happen as
the single customer doesn't have enough clout.

The only real way to combat this situation from the customer side is to
either close the information gap and either learn enough to have an idea
what is really going on, or to have someone that knows do it for you. Even
then there is no guarantee because you actually have to know enough in each
new situation, not just have a well rounded knowledge as to what is going
on, although that can help(or hurt, a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing).. But it IS important to go in with a very cautious attitude, and
ALWAYS play like your wallet is glued shut. It also works to take extra time
to play the dealers and shops off each other(this would be playing the game
by their rules). You can setup an information gap of your own by not giving
the shop much info, just enough to do their jobs. If you walk in and say
"here's my car, something is wrong with it, it makes this noise... I just
took it to XYZ shop but I forgot what they said in their estimate.. Get me a
written estimate with a best and worst case scenario as soon as you can...
Thanks"... The shop says "can we see a copy of their estimate" and you say
"no, my buddy has it in his glove box, and his car is at the airport until
next week".  Now the shop knows they can't flex much, because they don't
know what you know, but they *do* know you know something. Awful isn't it? I
don't play that game with my customers, but am still forced to play in other
interactions all the time.

Jim

________________________________________
Bostig Engineering
Engine Systems Voodoo
http://www.bostig.com/
617.272.3800


At 02:16 PM 16/01/2007, you wrote:
>Ok, in a question with no bearing on the Boston Bob scandal of late, 
>here's a situation I've been in many times and have yet to find an answer
for.
>
>You hire a tradesperson by the hour to fix a problem. He or she puts in 

>the hours, but does not fix the problem. Do you pay?
>
>Sounds simple, but it rarely is. Case #1: I took a '93 Saab to a 
>reputable local mech to have the vacuum cruise control fixed, something 

>which I now know is by definition impossible. After five hours of labor 

>at something like $85 per hour, the mech came back with a kind of 
>sheepish look and said he just couldn't figure it out.
>
>He put in the time, so he should be paid. I didn't get the problem 
>fixed, so he shouldn't be paid. What's the answer?
>
>Case #2: an HVAC installer put in a $4,500 water heater in one of our 
>buildings, but could not get it to start. After countless hours on the 
>phone with the manufacturer and other information sources, we had our 
>maintenance guy reverse the polarity on the AC supply. Five minutes and it
worked fine.
>We paid the installer around $2K for his labor but balked at the second 

>bill he sent for his (worthless) hours troubleshooting.
>
>He put in the hours. Should he be paid? Should we, for the damage to 
>our company's reputation from irate tenants without hot water? For the 
>hours we put in?
>
>I think this happens all the time, especially in diagnostic situations 
>involving things like intermittent electrical problems.
>
>In Vanagons.
>
>Any mechanics out there care to comment?
>
>Geza

Björn Ratjen, Ph.D.
Cobble Hill, B.C.
phone/fax (250) 743-7575