Re: <REPOSTED> OT Re: Repair Fraud?

aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
> In article <4346ADCE.9498EB3C@xxxxxxxx>,
> "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > I guess it would be BS if a mechanic made the same wages as the
> > > parts droid. It would also be BS if the parts droid were the one
> > > who has to absorb the labor in the event that the part fails
> > > while under warranty, something that happens quite frequently.
> > > Do you know for a fact that this particular small garage procures
> > > their parts from the parts place down the street? Or are you
> > > comparing apples to oranges?
> >
> > The garage should be procuring parts from the area wholesale supplier.
>
> Sometimes that is possible, other times it's not.
> That area wholesaler may be 30-40 miles away and only deliver to
> a given town once a day, fine if a customer doesn't mind getting
> his car back as anticipated (where've I heard that before?).

Fine as long as the options and costs are communicated to the customer
so they can decide if it can wait a day to save a few dollars.

>
> > They should be able to pass that part along at roughly the same price
> > that it would cost from the local ACME/NAPA/Whatever quality parts
> > place, and still have a reasonable markup on it to cover the small
> > amount of handling cost.
>
> I know of no one charging more for a NAPA part than what a
> civilian can buy it for [there] over the counter, in fact, I've
> had experiences where Joe Blow off the street bought a part for
> less than I pay for it as a wholesale customer.

Certainly sales can distort the pricing. I would still expect wholesale
to be at least 10% less than normal retail for the same quality part.

> As for how this relates to the OP (basva), we don't know where
> his parts were sourced from, only that he priced them at a NAPA
> franchise.

Correct, we don't know where the parts were sourced from and we don't
know about any quality differences between what was sourced and what he
priced. It is likely however that the parts were marked up considerably
which lead to his post here. If the parts were only marked up 10% and
the labor rate was a bit higher it is unlikely he would be complaining.

Due to the thread fragmentation I don't have the original numbers, but
if he priced the part at NAPA for $5 and was charged say $8 on the
invoice I doubt he'd be complaining. My point is that I want to see an
honest accounting of costs vs. the part markup loading of the cost to
allow an apparent lower labor rate.

>
>
> > > Something to make an attorney laugh.
> >
> > Attorneys will litigate anything where they feel they will get paid,
> > regardless of the merits of the case.
>
> Not "litigation", more like advice as in 'don't stick your neck
> out where it is easily chopped off.'

Spent a lot of time with trial lawyers, a common joke among them is
"it's the 95% of lawyers that give the 5% a bad name". Trust me, as long
as *they* will get paid, they take pretty much anything.

>
> > > If a customer is driven away because of something as inane as
> > > mark up or book keeping, he wasn't a desirable customer to begin
> > > with.
> >
> > If said owner feels he has enough business to not be concerned with
> > loosing customers due to deceptive invoicing practices and can stay in
> > business then he must be in a good market.
>
> There is no evidence of "deceptive invoicing practices", listing
> everything involved in a repair job in black and white is
> precisely contrary to what you're claiming.

It's not deceptive to price a part at several times it's actual cost?

>
> > > Is it the same in all states? was this discussion _ever_
> > > qualified by a certain state?
> >
> > It is substantially the same in all states, except perhaps for CA and
> > MA.
>
> No it's not.

Care to give examples of where it's drastically different (other than CA
and MA)? I said *substantially* the same not exactly the same.

>
> > > > Records and an invoice are not the same thing.
> > >
> > > In the auto repair business they are the exact same thing.
> > > In my business, they are the exact same thing as far as what the
> > > customer is privy to seeing (excludes my check book register and
> > > charge card statements, etc.).
> >
> > Perhaps for auto repair businesses that are still in the stone ages.
> > Basic contact/customer management software for small businesses is not
> > that expensive.
>
> Repair shop invoicing/repair order/management software is highly
> integrated to the point where it posts current pricing at major
> parts suppliers, labor times, profit margin and a host of other
> features.
> I can think of but one repair shop in this county that still hand
> writes repair orders carbon copy style (which gets the customer
> the exact same document as what the shop keeps as a record, which
> is the way it was always done), of the various trade specific
> software programs I'm familiar with (three), all generate
> identical copies whether they are for the customer or shop
> records, haven't seen one yet which gives the option of dumbing
> it down for the customer.

My reference was to the ability to maintain a complete record of the
customers and vehicles history more easily than hardcopy.

>
> > > Okay, how about we cover the extra labor needed on account of
> > > having to do extra book work by marking up the parts.
> > > Printing two copies of form X takes a lot less time (actually, no
> > > time) than having to generate copies of form X and form Y.
> >
> > If you're still doing "book work" that's where your problem is.
>
> I don't have a problem, I have five computer (six if you count my
> PDA which can access the others via Bluetooth) running.

Good. Rather a requirement these days since a lot of manuals are going
electronic.

>
> > With proper software you don't have to generate forms X and Y, you only have
> > to enter the details of the work (parts/hours/supplies) once and then
> > print the invoice. The customer record will store all the information.
>
> And the shop would be nuts to not print and file a hard copy.
> I've had major computer crashes and it was the hard copies that
> saved my ass.

That is what backups are for. If you conduct business on a computer, you
should be backing up the data nightly and the backup media should be
rotated through off site storage. For a small operation this could be a
CD-RW/DVD-RW and it could be brought home each night. The main thing is
it allows recovery if the shop burns to the ground.

Additionally with the low cost of hard drives these days and the
availability of both hardware and software RAID options it makes sense
to mirror the disks on the system so that a disk failure does not even
cause down time, much less loss of data. I had a system I manage loose a
disk the other night, no impact at all, the disk was auto replaced with
a spare by the controller and I replaced the dead disk at my leisure.
Used to be expensive to do this, pretty cheap now.

>
> > > That point was addressing those who bemoan invoices that list
> > > parts and labor separately instead of doing the invoice as a
> > > canned job.
> >
> > I don't recall anyone complaining about that.
>
> Then you're not paying attention. It comes up quite frequently
> in the auto.tech groups, possibly mentioned in this thread also,
> but since this thread has been fragmented, it would take some
> doing to reference back...

I recall this thread beginning with a complaint about what appeared to
be a grossly inflated part price.

>
> > My point was the
> > receptiveness of excessive markup on parts to cover what should be
> > included in the labor rate or listed separately as shop time. This is a
> > deceptive practice to allow the posting of artificially low "labor"
> > rates.
>
> So, you'd rather see a line item entry for time spent calling the
> parts store to procure the part?
> Flat fee or straight time?

That would fall under the labor time. Time spent procuring parts is just
as legitimate as time spent installing them.

> What happens if the parts store is busy and the mechanic is put
> on hold? One way is unfair to the customer, the other unfair to
> the mechanic.

Unfair how? You should be paying for the time the mechanic is spending
working on your repair. Parts procurement is part of that work.

> If the labor rates are artificially low, how much per hour do you
> suppose they would have to be raised? $30 per hour? $40 per hour?

Based on the $60-$70/hr I typically see, probably about $20-$30/hr would
cover the difference in not grossly inflating parts costs. If this makes
the labor cost seem too high then break out the shop overhead portion
separately and only include the labor related cost in the labor rate. $5
for the part, $50/hr labor, $30/hr shop time.

>
> > > The home entertainment market is a whole lot more competitive
> > > than auto repair, so using it as an example of why not to mark
> > > parts up falls short, not to mention that the warranty labor
> > > after the installation is a whole different animal.
> >
> > I never said not to mark up the parts, however that markup should be
> > comparable to the quality auto parts store down the street. You should
> > be purchasing the parts at wholesale cost and marking them up to retail
> > cost, not 2x-4x retail.
>
> And you're seeing this 2X-4X no matter where you go?

I haven't gone to a large number of shops, but that is indeed the range
I've typically seen.

>
> > > had it
> > > occurred to you that the labor involved in replacing a speaker
> > > with a blown voice coil is a lot less than (say) what happens if
> > > a timing belt or water pump fails?
> >
> > Actually, I did stereo / VCR repair at a shop for a while and I can
> > assure you that the labor costs are higher than you think. As for the
> > blown voice coil, that is considered abuse and would not be covered
> > under warranty anyway. Blowing your amp by shorting the speaker wires is
> > also not covered under warranty.
>
> I'm referring to how hard it would be to get that speaker out of
> where it's installed so it can be worked on, (specific to your
> installed home theater system vs. Best Buy price analogy) not the
> specifics of 'who's at fault.'

I'm not quite following here. If it was a customer supplied part and the
failure was due to a defect in the part and not the installation, then
the customer is responsible for that labor.

>
> > > Of course there is no possibility that the job ahead of yours ran
> > > into trouble, or that someone may have called in sick or had a
> > > funeral to attend, is there?
> >
> > No possibility whatsoever. The shop had my cell and pager numbers and
> > could easily have contacted me to let me know they would not be able to
> > meet the original deadline and to request instructions on what they
> > should do. They also did not give any such excuse when I picked up the
> > truck.
>
> Your reasons for choosing this shop to begin with were?

The dealer?

> And the thing with excuses is, well, they sound like excuses.

Yes, indeed they do. And in this case the cause of the delay is pretty
much irrelevant, it is the handling of that delay that is the problem.

>
> > > I'd have to think that this was the result of the mechanic being
> > > interrupted while doing the re-assembly, something which is a big
> > > problem in the industry.
> >
> > Certainly a possibility that the mechanic was interrupted, but it still
> > shows the lack of a final QC review before taking the truck off the
> > lift. It also calls into question whether they did a road test after the
> > repair. I would certainly expect a once around the block after a clutch
> > replacement and if they did that they certainly should have noticed the
> > clunking. They were quite lucky it didn't puncture the fuel tank and
> > send the truck up in flames.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > I went for a ride last fall with a friend who had just purchased
> > > a 1969 GTO, he had new tires mounted on the wheels and hung the
> > > tires and wheels himself (because he likes to putz), we got about
> > > 6 miles away and began hearing a clunking noise, the left front
> > > wheel had but one lugnut left.
> > > I guess it means that we're all human.
> >
> > I take it he didn't use a torque wrench.
>
> He didn't own one at the time, but aside from that, I'm certain
> that something distracted him since the other three wheels didn't
> come loose.

That's the nice thing about the torque wrench, if you're not sure if you
did that lug, you just do it again.

>
> > I just did the brakes on my
> > truck and I used the torque wrench on every fastener that had a torque
> > spec. listed in the factory service manual.
>
> Good habit.
>
> > > Problems occur in every aspect of life/business, it isn't the
> > > problems themselves but how they are handled that is important.
> > > Did you call the dealership and allow them the opportunity to
> > > correct their mistake, or did you handle it yourself and resign
> > > yourself to condemning them for what happened.
> >
> > Both of the above stories were at the same dealer. The had a second
> > chance and failed that one as well.
>
> But specifically, when you found the loose center support
> bearing, did you call them and tell them to send a tow truck on
> there dime?

No, I went into my shop and got a couple suitable bolts to secure the
bearing. I then called the shop and let them know about the problem and
stopped by the next day so they could see the gash in the fuel tank
shield. There was little question the bolts I installed were not the
originals since all I had on hand in the proper size were stainless.

>
> > > As for warranty fraud on a clutch on a new vehicle; I don't see
> > > how such a thing can exist. No OEM that I know of warranties
> > > their clutches, this is something that you agreed to at the time
> > > of purchase.
> >
> > They aren't warranted for wear, but the certainly should be covered for
> > defects in manufacturing. A clutch on a 1T truck should not fail 25,000
> > miles. My other truck did 165,000+ miles on the original clutch, and in
> > this case the failure was not related to wear, in fact the problem was
> > failure to release fully. Nobody made any claims that the failure was
> > due to wear or abuse. At any rate a company that fails to stand behind
> > their product when there is a clear manufacturing defect will get no
> > further business from me.
>
> It's the OEM who is responsible for the defect in manufacture,
> yet your grudge is against the franchised dealership who is
> caught in the middle.
> BTW, what brand truck was it?

It's the OEM that I've blacklisted due to their warranty fraud, not the
dealership. Of course it's indirectly the dealership since they won't be
selling me another new vehicle. The dealership was dumped after the two
significant service issues noted above (and some smaller annoyances).

The truck is a Chevy K3500 dually. It's generally done fine other than
the defective original clutch (141,000 miles now and the replacement
clutch is still fine), and it's propensity to eat rear axle seals.

I just did the rear axle seals for the fourth time, the first time was
under warranty done at the dealer and the next two seal replacements
were also at the dealer in conjunction with brake jobs. When I just did
them myself I found that the hub on the problem side was buggered up in
the seal seating area, clearly from someone trying to pull the seal.

Since this was the first time I'd been into the hub I can only assume
that this was done at the dealer. I'm not sure how they managed this
since if you're pulling the seal properly the seal itself is protecting
the hub. You of course mangle the seal, but the metal of the seal unit
protects the hub surfaces.

Pete C.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Re: Repair Fraud?
    ... >>> that brake inspection has to go back together so the hoist can be ... That depends on what the customer is asking for. ... >> Simple because then you would have to increase your labor rate ... "Your" in this case is referring to a shop that is known to have a high ...
    (rec.autos.tech)
  • Re: OT Re: Repair Fraud?
    ... > Fine as long as the options and costs are communicated to the customer ... and $7 on an exhaust pipe, workflow thru the shop is disrupted, ... > the labor rate was a bit higher it is unlikely he would be complaining. ... There is no compelling reason to go to a dealership for a brake ...
    (rec.autos.tech)
  • Re: OT Re: Repair Fraud?
    ... >> Fine as long as the options and costs are communicated to the customer ... > and $7 on an exhaust pipe, workflow thru the shop is disrupted, ... Simple because then you would have to increase your labor rate ... compare costs readily, inflating the cost there hurts the perception. ...
    (rec.autos.tech)
  • Re: OT Re: Repair Fraud?
    ... >> who has to absorb the labor in the event that the part fails ... less than I pay for it as a wholesale customer. ... >> In the auto repair business they are the exact same thing. ... I can think of but one repair shop in this county that still hand ...
    (rec.autos.tech)
  • Re: Repair Fraud?
    ... Parts and consumables at essentially fair market cost. ... I'd still expect the labor cost to be fairly high since it ... >> you find the labor cost and the shop cost cause customers to balk. ... It's really a customer education issue. ...
    (rec.autos.tech)