Re: <REPOSTED> OT Re: Repair Fraud?

aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
> In article <4346F42F.4D992281@xxxxxxxx>,
> "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Problem is, now while we're saving the customer $5 on brake shoes
> and $7 on an exhaust pipe, workflow thru the shop is disrupted,
> that brake inspection has to go back together so the hoist can be
> freed up to do other work, duplicate labor, wasted motion,
> jockey, shuffle, yadda-yadda-yadda.

True in cases where the problem requires diagnosis, not true in other
cases where the likely parts are well known before going in as in a
brake job. Customer brings vehicle X in for brakes all around, you know
you will need pads/shoes and perhaps a hardware kit.

>
> > > 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.
>
> My wholesale discount from a dealership is 20%, my wholesale
> discount from NAPA and CarQuest varies from between 50% to 20%
> depending on the line code of the product and the buying power of
> the individual store. Now, these may seem extreme to you
> (assuming I charge the customer full list price) but compared to
> pharmacies and drug companies who routinely have mark up ranging
> from 1000% to 240,000%, I (we) are just amateurs.

Ok, so why can't you live with a 20% markup on parts like the parts
store? Simple because then you would have to increase your labor rate
and you want to post a seemingly low labor rate. This is in my opinion
deceptive.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Actually, we don't even know if he's reading the invoice
> correctly. There was no information offered as to whether he
> approached shop management for an explanation, so I suspect that
> it didn't occur. What I did glean from the OPs post was a
> typical case of buyers remorse.

And that buyers remorse is influenced by a distorted accounting of the
costs. If the average person looks at a bill that shows say $50 in parts
and $100 in labor and they know they can buy the part for $20 they are
more likely to get upset than if the bill shows $20 for the part and
$130 for labor. People will cringe at the labor rate and say "I wish I
made that much per hour", but they will get upset at the overpriced
part.

>
> > 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.
>
> Fine, when you open your super dooper repair shop with your name
> on the marquis, you'll certainly have full access to such
> information, until then and unless you're the IRS or my
> accountant, no dice, you aren't entitled to see mine or any other
> business's records. Your neighbor may not mind that you steam
> open their mail and read it, but I sure as hell do.

Again you're overreacting. As I noted above it's a case of perception,
the bottom line total may be the same, but on parts where anyone can
compare costs readily, inflating the cost there hurts the perception.

>
> > > 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.
>
> 'cept that he wasn't paid anything, and the advice given was
> bound to create a situation where he wouldn't need to get paid
> anything.

Huh? Not sure what you're getting at here. The point was that lawyers
will litigate anything no matter how ridiculous as long as they are
confident that they will get paid.

>
> > > 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?
>
> No, it isn't.
> Ever hear of price point marketing?
> Wanna take a stab at what the branch cost of a Snap-On branded
> engine analyzer is that sold for $12,000? (hint, knock a zero off
> and you'll be with-in $300)
> No one forces anyone to buy anything. Auto repair is not a right,
> it is a consumer commodity and the morality involved is no
> different than the 1000% Mickey D's makes on a cup of Coca-Cola.
> It's called "capitalism."
> Does Bill gates really need all that money? Apparently the world
> thinks so because they're the ones who put it in his bank account.

Again my point was not the total cost, it was the itemizing of that cost
in a distorted way.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Nope, I have neither the time nor the inclination to pour thru
> each states tax laws, and it wouldn't sway the total discussion
> one way or another to any appreciable amount.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> It _is_ maintained easily, it's still on the hard drive and a few
> mouse clicks brings it up. The shop doesn't _have_ to print
> themselves a copy, I merely commented that that is what I and
> others do. Either way, the view on the screen will look
> essentially the same as what was printed, the notion of two
> versions, one being detailed for the shop and one being bland to
> ease the customers eyes, ain't happening.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> As mine are and is really the only way that makes sense.

Not as convenient for reading in the can though.

>
>
> > > 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.
>
> It is. I merely choose another layer of protection, and since I
> have to maintain a paper file for quarterly sales tax, it takes
> up zero space and the cost of the paper and toner is minimal.
>
> > 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.
>
> I use a zip drive since the files are not that large being
> strictly text.

I use a combination of DLT tape and CD-R/DVD-R media these days for my
personal systems. The USB "thumb drives" or any of the flash card media
types aren't bad either as they have become quite inexpensive for a
decent capacity. They also fit nicely in the smallest safe deposit box
where a full sized CD/DVD won't.

>
> > 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's cool.

Also a lot nicer than getting paged at 3am to restore from backups.

>
> > > 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.
>
> It did indeed, but without seeing the invoice and knowing from a
> first hand account what actually was done, neither of us know for
> sure.
> At some point, the OP probably had to authorize the work to be
> done at a stated price, once that happens, an agreeable business
> transaction has taken place. The fact that the OP experienced a
> case of buyers remorse afterward is more a study in psychology
> than it is a study in mechanics morals. He could have just as
> easily come here and posted that he got $XX.xx quote from shop A
> and $YY.yy quote from shop Z, but to actually _see_ something
> like that happen in rec.auto.tech would be a rare bird indeed.
>
> > > 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.
>
> No, actually it doesn't. Labor time (as published) doesn't even
> include diagnostic time. Labor time is literally the time spent
> where a wrench or socket is removing or installing a component or
> fastener.

If you're talking the published "book" time for various repairs. I'm
talking about what I consider valid labor time on the invoice you hand
me. I count the active time spent dealing with my vehicles repair.

>
> > Time spent procuring parts is just
> > as legitimate as time spent installing them.
>
> Yes it is. That is one reason that I sell them for more than I
> pay for them.

But the 20% markup from wholesale to retail isn't enough?

>
> > > 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.
>
> No it's not. Obviously you are not familiar with how automotive
> labor time is time studied.

I'm not particularly interested in how they work it for OEM warranty
repairs since I don't pay for them. I'm interested in the labor time on
my invoice and what I consider appropriate. I'm generally pretty
reasonable on such things and generally allow more than the standard
"book" time in my estimates. If they get it done in the book time I'm
pleasantly surprised.

>
> > > 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.
>
> And that totals differently from $10 for the part, $75 for labor
> how? And more importantly, what's the big deal?

Perception. Perception is everything. When the customer sees a 4X markup
on a part they can readily check the retail price on they perceive they
are being ripped off, regardless of whether the labor rate is $15/hr
lower than it would otherwise be.

>
> > > 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.
>
> So your position on this is based on anecdotal evidence of a very
> small sample size.

Small sample, but widely diverse as in multiple states. I also have info
from others that confirms that this large markup is common.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Okay, so explain for me why it is that the customers hardly ever
> understand it that way. There are almost always crocodile tears,
> and when that doesn't work, next comes the obligatory "well, you
> guys must have screwed it up then." Fact is, anyone showing up
> with his own parts has probably found himself in over his head on
> the job to begin with, and as a result of that lacking skill
> level, probably wasn't qualified to make that particular parts
> choice to begin with.
> Pete, listen up; been there, done that, tried to be a nice guy,
> got the complimentary hat and all that, and every time had it
> rammed up my ass so far, it knocked a few teeth loose.
> NO, we do not install customer supplied parts, no exceptions, not
> even just this once.
> I have had plenty of instances where I was asked to install
> customer bought ball joints, carburetors, rear axle components,
> remote starters, you name it, never, not once had one of those
> individuals bought a quality name brand component, it's always
> cheap *** bubble packed garbage that WILL adversely effect my
> reputation. I'd much rather be bad mouthed for having rules and
> sticking to them than being bad mouthed over a job gone sour
> because someone stuffed chinese knock offs in my face with the
> promise that they understood ALL the ramifications (which they
> never really do).

I suppose I am more understanding than typical customers, I understand
the details of how the particular parts work and I understand the costs
associated with running a garage. Where I have problems is poor customer
service, shoddy work and deceptive pricing.

If I am going to bring my vehicle in for work I look at what parts will
be needed and their retail cost and the amount of time I expect the work
to take and the shop's labor rate. From this I should be able to
estimate the total cost for the work. Excessive markup on parts causes
this estimate to be off and it should not be that way. It is deceptive
to post a lower labor rate and then make it up in excessive parts costs
which may not be fully accounted for on an estimate.

>
> > > Your reasons for choosing this shop to begin with were?
> >
> > The dealer?
>
> Whom ever it was that dropped the ball on your brake work.
> There is no compelling reason to go to a dealership for a brake
> job.

There is in a state with few independent shops left, particularly when
the dealer is within walking distance of work.

>
> > > 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.
>
> That's one reason I will never work in a dealership again.
> Too many layers. Too much confusion. Too much I don't give a
> ***.

And that is why I yelled at the service manager, not the mechanic.

>
> > That's the nice thing about the torque wrench, if you're not sure if you
> > did that lug, you just do it again.
>
> That's the thing, the not sure part never even crossed his mind.
> Being a non professional automotive wise, he didn't have the
> discipline or the mind set, that's why adherence to rules is so
> important.

Probably left the gas cap at the station as well. A lot of that adult
ADD these days.

>
> > > 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.
>
> So they never got the opportunity to correct their mistake.
> I have to believe that they'd have straightened it out for zero
> charge, under similar circumstances, you know a doctor wouldn't
> have.

Wasn't really relevant. I resolved the problem and made them aware of
it. Had I just called them and had them tow and fix the problem it would
not have made any difference in my final assessment.

The final assessment was that they did a shoddy job, missed at least two
opportunities (QC and road test) to catch the mistake and put my safety
at risk in the process. How they would have handled it after the fact
would not change any of that.

>
> > > 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).
>
> Sorry, I had to go back and review that you had two issues with
> the clutch repair, the original failure and the subsequent choke.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Well, GM does love to experiment and use the consumer as a guinea
> pig.

Yea, but this is the 14 bolt 10.5" full floating axle that has been
around since the stone age. I've read numerous articles on it,
particularly in off road magazines and never heard mention of it eating
axle seals. The clutch is also nothing exotic and probably the same
design they've used since the switch from mechanical linkage to
hydraulic linkage.

>
> > 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.
>
> Good grief!

That's what I said before making sure there were no raised burrs and
then applying some red RTV to fill the buggered areas and hopefully
prevent leakage on the outside of 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.
>
> A'yup, I've worked next to plenty of these guys.

One of the reasons I just gave up on taking the truck anywhere and just
do things myself as much as possible. You'd probably get a kick out of
the "robo foot" I threw together to assist in bleeding the brakes by
myself. A few Unistrut parts and a pneumatic cylinder from my parts bin.
Lets me lay on the creeper and work the bleeder screw while also working
the brake pedal.

Pete C.
.