 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / September 2004Cost of a loose gas cap? $86.00 USD according to my dealership
There I was, on the way home from the airport Thursday night after a week out of town on business when my 'check engine' light comes on (2000 Accord).... I immediately dial up the dealership, where they advise me to bring it in asap. I tell them Ill drop it off that night at the key drop so they could look at it the next day. When I arrive at the house from the airport and exit the car, I smell gas fumes, so I pop the gas latch and the gas cap is very loose, almost a quarter turn loose in fact. I tighten it up and noticed (unbelievably for the first time) the written warning on the gas cap that a loose cap will set off the engine light..... well, I think to myself, there's the problem. But being a little paranoid, I decide to take the car into the dealership in any case. When I drop off the keys, I write on the form that the engine light came on but soon afterwards I noticed the cap was loose.... This morning and the tech called me and told me that they hooked the car up 'to the computers' and everything was cool, that it was the gas cap that set off the engine light. Fast forward to this evening when I go and pick the car up..... and to my complete amazement, they charged me $86 dollars for the diagnostic test. Mind you they did no actual work, just ran the test. I was livid. I couldn't believe that they charged me almost a hundred dollars to tell me that my gas cap was loose (note that I bought the car at this dealership).... don't get me wrong, Im all about compensating someone for their time, but I called an independent Honda shop where even they were shocked at this price, and told me they would have probably not charged me anything, maybe the standard $30.00 fee if I wasn't a regular customer (i.e. didn't have anything else done). Question: Am I off base to be upset here? I have calls into the tech that did the 'test' and the manager of the service department for some kind of explanation. It would seem that they could have reasoned that it was the loose cap that tripped the light (since I wrote it down for them), reset the light and fired up the car. No light = problem solved. Light comes back on = a different problem, therefore testing required Yes, I know, it was stupid to take it to the dealer and I have learned my lesson, but it still stings pretty bad. I am a huge Honda fan, but this has soured me a little.... funny thing is that we were going in to look at Odysseys at that dealership this weekend, not now. brian drake charlotte, nc > There I was, on the way home from the airport Thursday night after a week > out of town on business when my 'check engine' light comes on /////snipped//// CAVEAT EMPTOR! don't know what that means? put those two words in a search engine and start reading the results. Dee > Fast forward to this evening when I go and pick the car up..... and to my > complete amazement, they charged me $86 dollars for the diagnostic test. > Mind you they did no actual work, just ran the test. I'm sure the tech appreciates your attitude. Well I am going to side with Honda on this one. Personally I do my own work and if a check engine light comes on I will get the code and troubleshoot it with the Honda service manual I bought. I do think a little common sense should have prevailed here and those without common sense, even for a moment, pay for it out of their wallets generally. Now if you were stranded in the middle of nowhere and all you needed was a couple gallons of gas, how much would you pay for that gas. What is the highest amount of money you would pay to get you back on the road and safely home? Probably quite a bit. I would be willing to bet it would be a lot more than the actual cost of 2 gallons of gas. The dealership gave you peace of mind by saying your car was ok. So now you take your car in that your obviously VERY worried about, the dealership thinks it probably is the cap but what if they send you out after clearing the light and the light comes on again for something else? You would be pissed as hell. The dealership did work on your car by hooking it up to a computer and checking the system. They probably also wiggled and jiggled a few things under the hood to cover their butts in case something else was wrong. If you knew there was a loose gas cap and the gas cap says make sure it isn't loose because a light could be triggered then I think everybody is even. CaptainKrunch > There I was, on the way home from the airport Thursday night after a week > out of town on business when my 'check engine' light comes on (2000 [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > brian drake > charlotte, nc Yeah, $86 for a check engine light is quite a bit. Maybe prices have gone up since I last took my car in to a dealership, but the last time I did I spent only $40. This was at a Saturn dealership. If you have any AutoZone stores in your area, they can check the service engine light for you for free...provided they have the equipment. -AGS > There I was, on the way home from the airport Thursday night after a > week out of town on business when my 'check engine' light comes on [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > brian drake > charlotte, nc >Yeah, $86 for a check engine light is quite a bit. Maybe prices have >gone up since I last took my car in to a dealership, but the last time I >did I spent only $40. This was at a Saturn dealership. >If you have any AutoZone stores in your area, they can check the service >engine light for you for free...provided they have the equipment. *All* AutoZone stores in the USA have an OBD-II compatible scan tool and can read and interpret the codes from any vehicle 1996 and newer. And yes, they will gladly do it for free. However, not everyone that works there knows how.... (altho it's pretty simple). and yes, $86 is certainly on the high side. But then maybe it was only $59.95 but he got zapped with the bullshit "shop supplies" charge and of course the obligatory sales tax. > > Yes, I know, it was stupid to take it to the dealer and I have > > learned my lesson, but it still stings pretty bad. I am a huge Honda [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- so what you are saying is that the tech's time and the dealerships time is worth nothing. the fact that you left your gas cap loose is not their problem, it's yours! and it should cost you. that piece of equipment they read your codes with is called the HDS and costs them about 6000.00. it has to get paid for. what line of work are you in by the way???? Chip On 8/14/2004 8:01 PM Chip Stein spake these words of knowledge: >> > Yes, I know, it was stupid to take it to the dealer and I have >> > learned my lesson, but it still stings pretty bad. I am a huge Honda [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > by the way???? > Chip No, Chip; that's not how it works. Nor is that how it *used* to work. Here's how it *did* used to work. When you had a problem, you took it to someone you trusted to be competent, and trusted not to f.ck you too hard on the cost. If they couldn't diagnose the problem, they didn't charge you. If they did diagnose the problem, they told you what it was. If you couldn't get it fixed right then, you didn't; you would usually pay some sort of fee for the diagnosis at this time, or you left with the understanding that when you did get it fixed, you would do it at that shop. They trusted you to be fair and honest with them. If you did get it fixed right then, you did it there; you trusted them to be fair and honest with you. If there wasn't any actual problem, say something like the problem outlined by the originating poster of a loose gascap, they told you, you said thanks, and went home. When you had a problem in the future, you remembered how you were treated and took it back to the same shop. No one's time or labor is thought to be worthless; you have working people who trust the shop to be competent, fair and honest, and you have repair shop personnel who trust that their customers will recognize value received and become satisfied, repeat customers. In contrast, I was charged $279 not long ago for an oil change, tire rotation, and a list of 'inspections' which took roughly six minutes to perform on my Odyssey, by the Honda shop. Unfortunately, there is only one in my area, and no one else I trust to do these inspections. It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot. I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a company that services computers, and does networking and other computer-related work (www.wetumpkatechnology.com). Not long ago, I was called to a law office to diagnose a computer problem. Although I spent two hours, I was unable to determine the cause of the problem. My hourly rate is $90, but in this case I chose not to charge even the $35 rate I charge just to show up. I told them that I didn't find, much less fix, the problem. I told them (well, wrote down for them) what to say to the manufacturer to take the next step in resolving it. That law firm has become one of my best customers; I have worked on their systems, and worked on the home PCs of some of the employees as well. Because they trust me not to f.ck 'em over on the price, and not to bullshit with them. Because I took a chance and didn't charge them when I couldn't help them. This economic model works; older people will tell you that that's how it used to work all the time. It still does - or can. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen  Signature"The best years of your life are the ones in which you decide your problems are your own. You do not blame them on your mother, the ecology or the president. You realize that you control your own destiny." -- Albert Ellis Attn to Dave Kelsen-->Best response I've seen on a newsgroup in a long time I agree 100% with your views. I still remember the time a long time ago a "DRL" (Daytime Running Light) error message appeared on the dash of my wife's Nissan Sentra. This was when they were first being introduced to the regular market. I (falsely) assumed it was an electrical problem and brought it to the Nissan dealer. 15 minutes later I was given a bill of around $40. ($15 light bulb, $20 labour + taxes). Yep. They actually charged me $20 for changing a light bulb. I know I should have checked the damn bulb first and it was stupid of me, but I wasn't thinking. Anyways, I paid the bill, but NEVER returned to the dealership for service again. My next car was a Honda because I was so upset over the bill despite the fact I was pleased overall with that little Sentra. It's that type of gouging that turns people off. EVERY single mechanic my father ever dealt with would have replaced the bulb, laughed at/teased him for missing the obvious and ONLY charged for the part. I know businesses don't make money by doing everything for free. But common sense would/should let a service manager know when to let the little things slide for nothing. But then again, common sense would/should have told me to check the damn bulb in the first place:-) http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/desjar > On 8/14/2004 8:01 PM Chip Stein spake these words of knowledge: > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > RFT!!! > Dave Kelsen > It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for > service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot. If people pay for it, it's right. People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right, not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be allowed to charge that for a cup of coffee? If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it. You can always tell exactly what something is worth, down to the penny. The value of an item is exactly what the person selling it for can get for it. > > It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for > > service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it. On 8/15/2004 6:40 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge: >> It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for >> service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it. Did you read the part about free enterprise that you quoted above, Elmo? I don't have to do it. They have the right to charge what they want, and I have the right not to take my business there. [This is why monopolies are illegal, Elmo; it denigrates this particular right of the consumer]. You seem to be confusing the semantical meaning of 'legally allowed within the bounds of our current incarnation of free enterprise', that is economically *a right*, and 'right' - which such gouging is not. I am a laissez faire capitalist, and I believe they have *a right* to charge whatever the market will bear. I experimented with driving the 85 miles to the next closest dealer, as is my right. It didn't prove economically feasible, due to the cost of my time. I have absolutely no idea what Starbuck's charges for a cup of coffee, as I have never been in one. But the charge is not just for the coffee - it is for the atmosphere and ambiance as well. I don't pay it, but then I have many choices for coffee. This is not the case with respect to servicing my Honda, in two aspects: there is no ambiance provided, and I do not have many choices. Finally, Elmo, you have completely missed the point. It is short-sighted *economically* to treat people this way. Eventually, someone will come along and treat them fairly, and you will lose customers. This shop has a right to say "f.ck you" verbally as well as symbolically when the customer pays his bill, but they don't; they perceive that doing so would cost them customers. They don't have any such perception about their abusive charging practices. Presuming they have given it some consideration, they believe that they cannot be successfully competed with. They have an exclusive deal with Honda, or they have some other real or perceived advantage (perhaps to do with training personnel). Their business model may work in the short term, but it makes customers unhappy; they don't just feel that they overpaid, they feel that they were cheated. This will cost in the long run. But they have a right to conduct business as they wish. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen SignatureWould I ask you a rhetorical question? > Finally, Elmo, you have completely missed the point. It is > short-sighted *economically* to treat people this way. That has not been proven, as the dealership service department remains in business. > > It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for > > service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it. Stupid analogy. Prices are posted in a Starbucks, you know what you are going to pay when you place the order, no surprises. If you don't want to pay it, you won't order because you know the price beforehand. He didn't get a price quote when he went in for service, got the bill, was surprised by the amount. That doesn't happen at Starbucks, it's not the same thing. Then you say 'If people pay for it, it's right", and follow up with "People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right". Obviously, this is not your day to make any sense. The real analogy here, is that a cup of coffee at Starbucks costs $2 plus, for a big one. A $5 cup is a specialty drink, that takes someone's time, and expertise to make competently, and that is what you are paying for. As far as this person's Gas Cap bill, the fact is that a lack of knowledge will always cost you, either time or money. Not asking questions beforehand - costs you, either time or money. Diagnosing a loose gas cap, taking someone's time to do it, and using someone's equipment and expertise, costs you if you can't do it yourself. > > People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right, > > not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you don't want to pay it, you won't order because you know the price > beforehand. And this differs from the car repair situation....how? Did he ask ahead of time how much this would cost, or did he just say "fix it" without asking how much? I know of no dealer who does not give an estimate at the time the work order is written, a minimum it would be. Further, you the customer have to initial that estimate. The minimum would be $86, because all they did was look at the code and clear it. You know that, you sign for it, THEN they do the work. This is NO different than Starbucks. > He didn't get a price quote when he went in for service, got the bill, > was surprised by the amount. He got a quote. He just isn't telling us. Further, even if they didn't offer a quote, why would he ask them to do the work without asking how much? Either way, the onus is on him. If he wanted to act like Donald Trump and just throw them the keys and say fix it, that's fine--but don't bitch about what happens. > I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a > company that services computers, and does networking and other [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > This economic model works; older people will tell you that that's how it > used to work all the time. It still does - or can. It works for me all day long at my favorite Honda dealership. But we have a relationship that goes back over 20 years. When some random Joe walks in the door, someone they've never see before and therefore never expect to see again, it's a crap shoot. They can do it your way, and probably never see the guy again--in fact, read postings on the Usenet about how "I screwed that stealer, he gave it to me"--or they could do it by the book. Given the number of people who have serious attitudes about dealership service, it's probably prudent nowadays for the dealer to charge in those circumstances. The dealership is better off waiting to see if a customer will be a long term customer, and then take care of him. It's probably not prudent for the dealer to give stuff away and hope that such a gesture is meaningful, in this day and age of people inherently distrusting the dealership for no reason other than "it's the stealership, what did you expect". On 8/15/2004 6:43 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge: >> I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a >> company that services computers, and does networking and other [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > postings on the Usenet about how "I screwed that stealer, he gave it to > me"--or they could do it by the book. I disagree that they are more likely to 'never seen the guy again' than they are to see him come back when he has another problem. I think if you take a rational examination of the responses you would get if you proposed the situation to a reasonably large group of individuals, you would find that I am right. But until you do so, it would be conjecture. (FWIW I have done so; this kind of business behavior is anathema to me. But I don't expect you to recognize my results as valid.) > Given the number of people who have serious attitudes about dealership > service, it's probably prudent nowadays for the dealer to charge in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > distrusting the dealership for no reason other than "it's the > stealership, what did you expect". You're reversing cause and effect here, Elmo. There's a reason that most people used to trust the dealer's shop, and there's a reason that many (I have no idea what percentage, but I don't suppose it's 'most') 'have serious attitudes about dealer service'. In fact, it is probably prudent for the dealer to address the issue -- just the way you say the dealer addresses it with you, but not with new customers. If you enter into regular business relationships with customers you feel are basically dishonest, you are not going to succeed in the long run, at least if there is competition. There are always examples of any particular notion; there are no doubt many people in this forum who could tell us true and accurate stories of people who have ripped off dealers, for various and sundry reasons. The mistake you've made in your last paragraph is simply the inclusion of the word 'inherently' in your last sentence. This behavior is in fact distinctly not inherent. It is a lesson that has been taught, learned and reinforced. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen SignatureIf you think education is expensive, try ignorance. > > When some random Joe walks in the door, someone they've never see before > > and therefore never expect to see again, it's a crap shoot. They can do [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > conjecture. (FWIW I have done so; this kind of business behavior is > anathema to me. But I don't expect you to recognize my results as valid.) You aren't in the car dealership service business. It's an entirely different beast. On 8/16/2004 4:57 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge: >> > When some random Joe walks in the door, someone they've never see before >> > and therefore never expect to see again, it's a crap shoot. They can do [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You aren't in the car dealership service business. It's an entirely > different beast. No, I am not. I am a customer, however. I have been a customer for many years, and I have talked to many other customers about this. Again, I don't expect you to simply accept my word, but you might take the time to ask the people you know how they feel about it, then maybe some you don't know. Or not. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen Signature"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all." -- Sophocles "Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote snip > I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a > company that services computers, and does networking and other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > less fix, the problem. I told them (well, wrote down for them) what to > say to the manufacturer to take the next step in resolving it. You're comparing apples and oranges. What you did was essentially offer a teaser rate. > That law firm has become one of my best customers; I have worked on > their systems, and worked on the home PCs of some of the employees as well. You've simply undercut the market <shrug>. > Because they trust me not to f.ck 'em over on the price, and not to > bullshit with them. Because I took a chance and didn't charge them when > I couldn't help them. > > This economic model works; older people will tell you that that's how it > used to work all the time. It still does - or can. So too does the economic model that a person's time is worth money. I don't care if a person is a doctor, a lawyer, a plumber, a nurse, or a car technician. If shops are now charging time for attempting to diagnose a problem without solving the problem, they are merely taking a cue from the so-called white collar professions that have been doing this for years. No white collar professional has grounds to complain. On 8/15/2004 9:37 AM Caroline spake these words of knowledge: > "Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote > snip [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You're comparing apples and oranges. I compare business practices wherein I obtain diagnostic service to business practices wherein I provide them. These are both the same fruit. I suggest that what I did and the way I did it turned out to be profitable for me and very satisfactory for the customer. I took a chance that the customer would not call me the next time they had a problem, or that they would only call me once more in the case that they expected other kinds of service for little or nothing. I bet that the members of the law firm would choose to believe that I am honest about what I can and cannot do, and would understand that I am hesitant to charge for effort rather than results. Both of these things are in fact true. I grant that in the case of the bulb, the dealer gave results but no effort. I have not indicated that I believe they should not have been compensated for it; rather, that I believe a fair (actually the word I used was 'right') charge would reflect both of these aspects of the business transaction. I used my own business as a example. > What you did was essentially offer a teaser rate. No. I would have charged the firm the book rate, had I been able to get the proper result. I would not have charged them the book rate had I only needed to, say, plug in the PC to the wall. Both aspects of the transaction (effort and result), should be taken into account. >> That law firm has become one of my best customers; I have worked on >> their systems, and worked on the home PCs of some of the employees as well. > > You've simply undercut the market <shrug>. I can't imagine where you get such an idea. <shrug>. What I did in fact was make some people think I was honest. The firm and the people there have become some of my best customers because after my second and third time servicing something for them, they were convinced of it. >> Because they trust me not to f.ck 'em over on the price, and not to >> bullshit with them. Because I took a chance and didn't charge them when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So too does the economic model that a person's time is worth money. I don't care > if a person is a doctor, a lawyer, a plumber, a nurse, or a car technician. As is mine. I have explained why in addition to being exploitive, this kind of business is less economically advantageous than a more honest approach would be. How much time (i.e. money) was installing that bulb worth? > If shops are now charging time for attempting to diagnose a problem without > solving the problem, they are merely taking a cue from the so-called white > collar professions that have been doing this for years. > > No white collar professional has grounds to complain. I gather from this last sentence that you did not actually read what I wrote. I'm not sure why you bothered typing a response. I am a 'white collar professional', and I have explained why I have grounds to complain (i.e. it is unwise to make potential repeat customers feel that they have been cheated by charging them an hourly rate of -- let's see, from the example, if the bulb cost $2 and replacing took all of 5 minutes -- just over $1000). And yes, I recognize the fairness of using a book rate, at least in some circumstances. The point is that when the customer feels cheated, the customer looks elsewhere. Finally, your penultimate sentence indicates that as long as some individuals or companies are f.cking people over, it must be OK for anyone to do it. That'll certainly sell in Peoria. Ah, well, as you say: <shrug>. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen Signature"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick "Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote snip > I am a 'white > collar professional', and I have explained why I have grounds to > complain (i.e. it is unwise to make potential repeat customers feel that > they have been cheated by charging them an hourly rate of -- let's see, > from the example, if the bulb cost $2 and replacing took all of 5 > minutes -- just over $1000). This was not a bulb replacement. Do you understand what it means when a check engine light comes on? The techs had to hook up the equipment and take a reading, otherwise, in my judgment they would have been incompetent. Yes, one has to have some training to know how to hook up a scanner, to know even that it can be done, take a reading, and interpret it. IIRC, it doesn't say something as simple as "loose gas cap," though that is a pretty good guess, all things considered here. Your opinion is noted. You can complain about anything you want. My opinion remains you don't have grounds to do so in this instance. > And yes, I recognize the fairness of using > a book rate, at least in some circumstances. The point is that when the > customer feels cheated, the customer looks elsewhere. Yup, this is the bottom line. > Finally, your penultimate sentence indicates that as long as some > individuals or companies are f.cking people over, it must be OK for > anyone to do it. It's an economic fact of life that it's okay to charge whatever one can get. The guy shoulda gone to an independent shop first. I think he has conceded as much and wisely chalked this up to a lesson learned, as we all have at at least one time or another. I don't call this effing people over. That's rather unfair. I call it reality. > > What you did was essentially offer a teaser rate. > > No. I would have charged the firm the book rate, had I been able to get > the proper result. I would not have charged them the book rate had I > only needed to, say, plug in the PC to the wall. Both aspects of the > transaction (effort and result), should be taken into account. And those lawyers would be laughing their a.ses off. You didn't get the results you thought you could get. Let me ask you this: should you pay the lawyers even though they didn't keep you out of prison? On 8/16/2004 4:56 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge: >> > What you did was essentially offer a teaser rate. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > this: should you pay the lawyers even though they didn't keep you out > of prison? That would depend on my agreement with the lawyers, and on whether they thought they had done what they were paid to do. In most cases, I should and I would. And yes, I realize this was intended to be a rhetorical question. In my personal experience, by the way, when you tell someone that they called a specialist in and all they needed was to plug in the machine, they are sheepish. They might perhaps laugh at themselves after I leave. In this case, what they did was provide me with business, whether they laughed or not. That was a hoped-for result, but not the primary reason I did not charge them. That's more or less my point: it turns out that honest business practices are also profitable business practices. I do not mean to imply that charging for one's time irrespective of results is dishonest. In this particular case, *I* didn't feel that the customer had gleaned sufficient value to justify it. How often have you heard a worker in a service shop say, "That's just the cost, sir/ma'am; there's nothing *I* can do about it." This was a case where there was something I could do about it. Surely, the result you outlined could have obtained, with the customer laughing because I had spent my time for no recompense from him. It didn't, but it could have. Ah, well. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen Signature"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." -- Albert Einstein > > You didn't get the results you thought you could get. Let me ask you > > this: should you pay the lawyers even though they didn't keep you out > > of prison? > > That would depend on my agreement with the lawyers, You didn't have a specific agreement with the car dealership. What did you expect them to do in the absence of any prior agreement? > That's more or less my point: it > turns out that honest business practices are also profitable business > practices. That's disingenuous; you're implying that the Honda dealership dealt in dishonest business practice, which is most certainly not the case. They provided an honest service, and did so under honest circumstances. That you disagreed with it because it cost $86 out of your pocket, is immaterial to that point. On 8/16/2004 4:54 PM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge: >> That's more or less my point: it >> turns out that honest business practices are also profitable business [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That you disagreed with it because it cost $86 out of your pocket, is > immaterial to that point. It wasn't my pocket, Elmo; that was the original poster. Further, my implication was much broader than you presume. I mean to imply that any business methods which do not provide fair value for payment are dishonest. In the case at hand, the original poster might well have decided that he received fair value for his $86, and this discussion wouldn't be taking place. How does one decide fair value? That's a good question, because it can be somewhat subjective. Here's a clue: on several occasions you mentioned customers laughing their a.ses off; if no one at the dealership thought it was 'pretty funny' that the OP paid $86 for a bulb change, then it might have been a fair value. Treating your customers as if you expect them to be cheats and thieves *can* work, as you've pointed out. It generally does not, if the customer base has other options. On the other hand, treating your customer base as if they had some sense and self-esteem has always worked. There are certainly individual customers who have neither, but it's still a good bet. Commerce works better, longer when both parties to an exchange of value are satisfied that they have gotten a fair trade. You may subscribe to P.T. Barnum's dictum, or you may feel that 'whatever the market will bear' is proper; both of these aphorisms are based in truth. But ultimately, a prosperous business relationship is based on respect. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen Signature"Neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons... rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven." -- Thomas Jefferson > I mean to > imply that any business methods which do not provide fair value for > payment are dishonest. But *you* are appointing *yourself* as the arbiter of what's "fair value". Doesn't work that way. Just because *you* don't like something (like I don't like the $5 cups of Starbucks coffee) doesn't mean it's bad and/or that "something should be done about it" to eliminate it. Case in point: a local Starbucks burned down several months ago. It has sat there, untouched, all these months. No news stories came out about this, but it turns out that in that same evening, 3 other Starbucks restaurants across the nation--all of them standalone buildings--were firebombed. This one nearby was also an arson, as it turns out. The feds are investigating, and it appears that PETA and another anti-business organization are being investigated in all this. Was that right? No, it wasn't. But if you ask those involved, they'll give you all sorts of reasons why Starbucks is wrong and therefore needs dealt with. They'll try to rationalize it all to hell. But who are they to be the arbiter of what's wrong? And who are you to be the arbiter of what's wrong in a business dealing? That you may not like it, and that you may not do business that way, is fine--but that doesn't make those who do business a different way "wrong" in any sense of the word. I was wondering how it work in another way. Hello Doctors office-I feel sick. You come in, they look you over and they tell you to take some over the counter stuff and get some warm soup in you, stay warm and dry. They fixed nothing, so therefore that doctors office visit should be free. Or am I wrong. I know the prices the dealers charge are a bit high and they have to cover their a.ses on stuff. But they did go to Honda school and they got all that stuff to pay for. I hate to say it, but that's the way it is. I guess I am lucky, I have a certified Honda Master mechanic around the corner from my house. I do not bother him for small stuff (oil and tire stuff) but the big things he does at a real good price. He even uses Honda stuff on my car. > On 8/14/2004 8:01 PM Chip Stein spake these words of knowledge: > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > ecology or the president. You realize that you control your own > destiny." -- Albert Ellis I'm in the banking / finance business. As I said in my original post, I believe that some type of compensation was due since it did take up some of their time, but 86.00 is excessive to the point of robbery plus I thing they could have reset the light for me and sent me on my way without all the testing (since I told them what happened). 6000.00 doesn't seem like very much to me for a piece of diagnostic equipment, but assuming your right, that means that at those outragous prices, they could pay off the machine in roughly 69 loose gas cap visits, and the rest is profit (not including labor costs). Something else I noticed was some type of organized labor logo on the 'customer satisfaction' letter I had in my car after the work was performed..... that could be the full explanation right there, I don't remember this being a Union shop in the past. I am told by some that the dealerships have 'set costs' that they charge for things no matter how long they actually take to perform, which means they probably 'estimate' that an issue such as this takes 30 min to work on..... so they rip me a new one on the 86.00 spend 15 minutes on it and move on to the next sucker and double their profit per hour, etc. Sucks, but I'll chalk this one up to an expensive lesson. > > > Yes, I know, it was stupid to take it to the dealer and I have > > > learned my lesson, but it still stings pretty bad. I am a huge Honda [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > by the way???? > Chip > I'm in the banking / finance business. As I said in my original post, I > believe that some type of compensation was due since it did take up some of > their time, but 86.00 is excessive to the point of robbery plus I thing they > could have reset the light for me and sent me on my way without all the > testing (since I told them what happened). My dealership would have done that. However, I have a long standing and very good relationship with my dealer. Had I gone to someone I don't know, I would expect to pay him for his time as we have no relationship at all. That's just the business world. Do YOU have a good and long standing relationship with this dealer? > Something else I noticed was some type of organized labor logo on the > 'customer satisfaction' letter I had in my car after the work was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > their profit per hour, etc. Sucks, but I'll chalk this one up to an > expensive lesson. Dude, you need to get out more. This is how dealerships work, and have worked forever. Not only dealerships, but all auto repair. The book says the repair takes X amount of time. You pay for that. You're bitching that the guy took less time than that, yet you paid for the book rate. Hey, this is what promotes good technicians; they might work an 8 hour day, but get paid for 11 or 12 hours worth of work. If they're good, they deserve to be recognized for that. Let's turn that around, shall we? Let's suppose you got the shop doofus, who took X + 3 hours to do the work. If you're paying for ACTUAL time, you just paid for the fact that you got a newbie, a guy who's struggling to find his way around the shop and around your car. Why didn't I get the one good guy in the shop, you're asking yourself. But hey, you were the one who wanted to pay ACTUAL time spent, right? The flat rate protects you from the unexpected and from morons, and it promotes the good technicians and keeps them there and gives huge incentive for them to stay good technicians. You can bitch about the flat rate all you want, but if it weren't flat rate--if you paid for the actual time the tech spent in front of your car--you'd be bitching about that, too. If you're going to bitch about auto repair, then fix it yourself. Do some reading ahead of time, and know that a loose gas cap is the VERY FIRST thing you check when you see the check engine light--and that the light will go out on its own once you fix the loose gas cap. You didn't take the time to understand this--shoot, it's in the owner's manual, and it's obvious you never even read that--so you pay someone else for that knowledge as needed. Is that so hard to understand? Do you frequently go to places that give their time and expertise away to some random Joe who walks in the door, some guy they've never seen before? Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who walk in the door? > > Something else I noticed was some type of organized labor logo on the > > 'customer satisfaction' letter I had in my car after the work was [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > If you're going to bitch about auto repair, then fix it yourself. Hear hear. Then more so-called white collar professionals might have a better understanding of how stupid they are; that their careers are built on a house of cards. I'm not going to be nice. Too many white collar professionals do not have real skills. They're paid fat salaries because someone years ago manipulated the market with some cerebral leger-de-main and convinced people that they had some magical ability that warranted them earning a lot more per hour than others. That's life, but there are recourses, from collective bargaining to voting for your preferred political candidate. Exception: The cost of the actual tuition-based education should factor into how much a person makes, as a rational economic matter. So if it costs $200,000 to make a medical doctor (whereas a car technician gets his education for maybe less than $5000 all told), then the MDs' time after graduation should be more valuable. But as far as I can tell, MD hourly rates already far exceed car technician rates. snip > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who > walk in the door? You said it. How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose it says a lot about their "education." > Exception: The cost of the actual tuition-based education should factor into how > much a person makes, as a rational economic matter. Hmm. I would have thought rational economics would have compensation based on value to client, not cost to provider. > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote > > Exception: The cost of the actual tuition-based education should factor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I would have thought rational economics would have compensation based on > value to client, not cost to provider. Sure. But then the subjectivity of what "value" is enters the picture and tends to push the discussion into the "irrational" direction and/or the direction that, "It's the market that determines salaries, stupid." Maybe "rational economic" was a poor descriptor, and I should have said something more like, "It seems reasonable to me that I should pay more to a person who provides a service when he/she paid more to acquire the skills to give the service." I'm talking actual skills here. Not the pseudo-skills that, say, a CEO is argued to have. Aside: It's not that a CEO has no skills. It's just that they're not skills that are very impressive to me nor worth the annual salary. If there were a nuclear holocaust, these guys are "sacrificable." After a nuclear holocaust, 100 ex-CEOs = 1 good car technician But the market is what the market does. <shrug> > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who > > walk in the door? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > says > a lot about their "education." That's right. He did give away some of his time; he gave it away to a law firm that he knew about, with the express purpose of trying to get some of their business. That was a BUSINESS decision he made. He knew the law firm. It wasn't just some yahoo who called up out of the blue and said, "come fix this!" BTW, News of the Weird reported recently that an associate at a law firm didn't show up to work one day, apparently because he was dead. The law firm billed him and his estate some ungodly amount of money for (a) the work he was doing that had to be reassigned to someone else as a result of his death, and (b) their investigation into why he didn't show up for work. They billed something like $3500 for knocking on his mother's door and asking her if she'd seen the guy. So, that law firm was laughing its a.s off when this guy said "no, don't bother paying me, that's OK". > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > So, that law firm was laughing its a.s off when this guy said "no, don't > bother paying me, that's OK". What I like best is when lawyers sue each other. :-) Sadly, I can believe the anecdote above is completely true. On the positive side, I do think the attrition rate for new lawyers is much higher than a few decades ago. Why? Because the competition is so stiff that the wages are falling and weeding out the incompetent. I think a much greater proportion of the lawyers today are of the burger flipper, very low level of competence variety. Caroline Writing as an ex-white collar professional retired from the yuppie life that breeds an inability to change one's own car's oil and, worse, sanctimony about not being able to do this. > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > says > > > a lot about their "education." didn't take much to get you guys started did it?. techs don't work for free, we work on flat rate. have for many years. this is nothing new. if you go to your doctor and he finds nothing wrong with you you can damn well bet he will still bill you insurance company. but you don't care about that until they raise your rates, then the bitching starts. Chip > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote > > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > didn't take much to get you guys started did it?. You talking to Elmo and me? It seems clear to me that he and I are on your side here. > techs don't > work for free, we work on flat rate. have for many years. this is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > don't care about that until they raise your rates, then the bitching > starts. Agreed on all counts. > You talking to Elmo and me? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Agreed on all counts. i just love to see these people get all stirred up over something that was likely their fault anyway. i do appreciate thebacking on this and it wasn't directed at you. This is the stuff i deal with all the time so i've pretty much heard it all. but it's still funny to stir the pot now and again. Chip "Chip Stein" <chip@chipanddebby.com> wrote Caroline wrote > > You talking to Elmo and me? > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that was likely their fault anyway. i do appreciate thebacking on > this and it wasn't directed at you. Oh, okay. > This is the stuff i deal with all > the time so i've pretty much heard it all. but it's still funny to > stir the pot now and again. I myself think a lot of folks who, say, never got their hands dirty take pause when this type of thread pops up. Ultimately, they may have more appreciation for the work auto technicians do. But if stirring the pot melts your butter, I understand. :-) I enjoyed immensely the running back and forth commentary. It was well worth the reading. I think a few of us can start our own debate club. Nothing like politics to get things going. **** Sometimes it may be best to leave sleeping dogs alone, but dogs were not made to sleep. That is why God made cats. Smile and make the world think you are up to something. > "Chip Stein" <chip@chipanddebby.com> wrote > Caroline wrote [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > But if stirring the pot melts your butter, I understand. :-) > You talking to Elmo and me? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Agreed on all counts. i just love to see these people get all stirred up over something that was likely their fault anyway. i do appreciate thebacking on this and it wasn't directed at you. This is the stuff i deal with all the time so i've pretty much heard it all. but it's still funny to stir the pot now and again. Chip > You talking to Elmo and me? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Agreed on all counts. i just love to see these people get all stirred up over something that was likely their fault anyway. i do appreciate thebacking on this and it wasn't directed at you. This is the stuff i deal with all the time so i've pretty much heard it all. but it's still funny to stir the pot now and again. Chip > I'm in the banking / finance business. As I said in my original post, I > believe that some type of compensation was due since it did take up some of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > roughly 69 loose gas cap visits, and the rest is profit (not including labor > costs). Well, only if you have no other costs in running a business. I'll assume the machine was solar powered, sitting in the middle of an public field. How long did it take for the diagnosis? > I'm in the banking / finance business. As I said in my original post, I > believe that some type of compensation was due since it did take up some of > their time, but 86.00 is excessive to the point of robbery Some would say that about the fees charged in banking / finance. <shrug> > plus I thing they > could have reset the light for me and sent me on my way without all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > roughly 69 loose gas cap visits, and the rest is profit (not including labor > costs). So, as you say, try another dealer... Good luck with that! ;-) > Something else I noticed was some type of organized labor logo on the > 'customer satisfaction' letter I had in my car after the work was > performed..... that could be the full explanation right there, I don't > remember this being a Union shop in the past. You're killin' me. Blue collar workers have as much a right to find ways to make money as white collar workers. If this means using collective barganing, so be it. (OTOH I am doubtful Honda technicians being union members is the rule.) AFAIC, white collar workers often use similar means. CEOs and University presidents will say, "So-and-so at Institution X is making this much. You want to keep me: Pay me the same as Instititution X." What's the extra money for? Nothing but what the market will bear. > I am told by some that the > dealerships have 'set costs' that they charge for things no matter how long > they actually take to perform, which means they probably 'estimate' that an > issue such as this takes 30 min to work on..... Cost setting by dealerships is completely rational. They're all supposed to use the same Honda service labor hour manual for jobs. If a technician can make the repair faster, he's accordingly rewarded. If not, he loses. This is unlike doctors, attorneys and I imagine various people in financial services who have highly variable rates for the same service. Which approach is more fair? Also, shops these days all seem to advertise their minimum diagnosis charge. Some or all states require this, IIRC. > so they rip me a new one on > the 86.00 spend 15 minutes on it and move on to the next sucker and double > their profit per hour, etc. Sucks, but I'll chalk this one up to an > expensive lesson. Yup. See if you can find a dealer shop that's better. I suspect that will be a challenge. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.