View From The Trenches

Sometimes, after almost three years, it gets difficult to come up with topics to write about on a weekly basis. I’ll admit there have been times when I can be found rooting around looking for subject matter late in a weekend. Other times, a theme appears like an apparition on a moonless night, enticing me forward. Thankfully, AGRR magazine or glassBYTEs.com™ provides me with enough material to prevent me from completely going blank. So it goes this time.

Did you see the glassBYTEs headline announcing D’leteren (Belron’s owner) had a 17 percent gain in auto glass-related jobs in the first half of 2010? A secondary headline proclaimed the company’s entry into the Russian market. As you may remember, earlier this year, Belron bought into the fledgling Chinese installation market where it is assumed that they were looking to become a presence and hopefully a force as both countries mature into an auto buying and driving public. 

I fear there are too many of us here in the United States that dismiss Belron as a foreign interloper that is destined to fail. That attitude represents the highest form of denial. If anyone looks at the company’s overall international presence, there is not a single auto glass company that is remotely close to Belron’s size and power. As the company marches around the globe, it has constructed business models that have had success in practically every country entered.

That has certainly been the case here in the United States where the term “united” is the last word used in describing the players and operators that make up the American auto glass market.

It was somewhat fortuitous that Belron was able to gain significant market share and broad national coverage by the timely purchase of our previously two largest installation company’s assets. Belron also has added specific pieces through acquisition. The company gains by absorbing certain rivals.

Belron was smart by choosing the most profitable market available—the insurance sector. No doubt, the company’s success in the States has been tied to the existence and efforts of Safelite Solutions, the company’s third-party administrator and what most independents consider the “golden funnel” for new business. This has given Belron the means and impetus to really concentrate on infrastructure that will provide the financial roots for long-term prosperity. At this point, even if ownership of third-party glass administrators was denied to companies that have a financial interest in replacement, Belron-Safelite (at this point through its marketing efforts) could sustain itself while making adjustments.

On a worldwide basis, the company commands respect and ultra-competitive pricing from any vendor seeking to do business with it since no other customer can buy in such volume internationally. Added to that, the company has the means to staunch any effort of aspiring rivals to truly grow and compete with it. In so many words, Belron is not going away. The “ostrich head in the sand” attitude is a most foolish line of thinking for anyone to take.

For independents, the existence of Belron has forced us to become more efficient and creative in our efforts for success. I know of several companies in various markets that feel and proven that they are a viable solution to corporate glass. McDonald’s sells millions of burgers a day worldwide, but can anyone truthfully admit that the company provides a gourmet experience? The same can apply to auto glass. Provide your customer with a personal touch and a memorable professional installation and it becomes very possible to have success against a much larger competitor.

What I wish for is that Belron act as a positive force within this industry, meaning that it can demand or command certain behaviors. An interview in the latest issue of AGRR with Gary Lubner saddens me because it appears he side-stepped a question concerning glass quality. He talks about the process inside Belron to protect the technician from getting sub-standard glass but he says that he “doesn’t see it (poor glass quality) as an increasing trend.”

I know Mr. Lubner knows good glass. His family made it. I was a customer of Mr. Lubner’s family’s first enterprise—Safevue glass manufactured in South Africa and sold via his family’s distribution company, Solaglas, when it came to the States in the 1980s. It was a well-made product as was Arva, a Finnish brand that the company also distributed. I cannot remember any consistent complaints.

Today is a different story. I would politely argue with Mr. Lubner’s assessment that glass quality has not changed. I strongly believe that we are being “cheapened to death” and that we as both vendors and consumers are the worse for it. I feel that this is one situation where a company of his buying power could affect positive change if it demanded it.

The other area that I believe Belron could affect change throughout the industry is by promoting good installation practices through its commercials It could negatively affect the numerous charlatans and hacks that beset this industry by showing the public what a “good” installation” should be. However, you must consider that the more the public perceives us as unprofessional, the more that benefits Belron as a reliable brand. Such is the power of TV.

We as independents may not appreciate or like the power that our nation’s largest retailer projects. Still, we have in our own hands the ability to succeed or to choose areas that we face smaller and less able competitors. Belron may seem invincible, but it is not. Large corporations may wield many weapons, but usually cannot respond quickly to individual needs. Indies can. It is said that “all politics are local” and that very same principle applies to sales. Make the customer feel appreciated and sell yourself as a neighbor. Heck, it works for State Farm.

I bet each and every reader out there has had a job that has gotten out of hand. Your involvement starts off fairly insignificant and begins to mushroom into a job whose finish has yet to be seen. In all of my 30 years of being a business owner, I have been reminded time and time again lately that I have been extremely lucky to only have been exposed to just a few of these boomerang jobs, but I have got a “doozy” of one now.

Late in 2009, I took a call from a person who had a leaky back window on his turn-of-the-century Honda coupe. He wanted me to give an expert opinion on what caused the water leak. The customer had gotten my name from my adhesive rep who was contacted after the customer had first called the national headquarters of his urethane manufacturer. In retrospect, that fact alone should have set off alarm bells.

I met this person in a local parking lot on my way home one day and viewed the car. It seems the car had been involved in an accident and the issue was not if the back glass was leaking but, rather, why was it leaking. The customer wasn’t sure if the window had been removed to facilitate painting or had just the exterior wraparound moulding (since it was loose). The customer had already complained to his insurer about the water intrusion and wanted the matter and cost of removal and subsequent repair to be warrantied by the insurer who directed him to the initial local contract shop.

I guess I had gained the customer’s confidence, because he declared that, based on various other recommendations and perhaps this inspection, he wanted me to pull the glass and fix the leak.

Months went by following that instance and sporadic contact took place. Ironically the person was involved in another minor accident in which the aging Honda sustained more body damage and it was agreed that a shop to which I provide auto glass service would perform the repair. Due to this, I got the job. I took at least two calls from the claims adjustor who verified what I had found and what I would charge for the removal and reset.

On the day the car was dropped off, I was asked to remove the back glass so the customer could see what actually caused the water leak. Removal was quite easy. What I found was this: The glass had been removed previously, and the reset urethane had adhered poorly (if at all) to the pinchweld. I found six areas of stage-one rust—three along the upper pinchweld that totaled perhaps six inches. Three occurred along bottom and were about one inch wide apiece. This should have been a commonly found situation that could be remedied easily, especially since close proximity to a professional body shop would be taking place. Oh, how wrong I was …

What no one suspected or even remotely thought of was the extent of customer involvement that has occurred over this repair. I have attended two meetings with the body shop manager, claims adjustor myself and my adhesive rep either in attendance or on a conference call. The client has contacted a paint manufacturer along with the adhesive manufacturer and has downloaded all sorts of corrosion abatement procedures and paint primer application directions and has become very informed on these subjects. He is so informed about rust, primer and urethane application that you could accurately say the professionals have lost control of the repair and the customer is dictating policy.

First, the question of rust removal has not been resolved. The client has read that grinding does not remove all rust, which sadly is what the body shop already did. In fact, a tech took off all the paint and primer along the top of the car’s pinchweld, which has opened a can of worms about how to seal it. The customer pulled a statement from a corrosion expert from his sheath of papers that stated that if any pitting was present, sand blasting or beading should take place. At his behest, the body shop manager ordered a mini sand blaster to rid the upper surface of the small number (five to ten) of tiny gestational pits. The customer has demanded that beading take place.

Now technicians registered with the Auto Glass Replacement Safety Standard (AGRSS) knows what is proper when it comes to new paint on areas around glass installs. Urethane primers are not substitutes for E-coat, but cover and clear coats can and will affect future adhesion.

The customer advised the body shop manager not to paint the part of the pinchweld that would come in contact with the urethane, and the only material the customer found appropriate was a protective primer that contained VOCs (and these have been banned in California). At this point, the job came to a standstill since it appeared no legal remedy could be found.

Next, the location of the glass (and therefore the urethane) became a matter of discussion. The client lectured both the adhesive rep and me about the matters of existing urethane beads and the acceptance of new adhesives. No matter how much we cited operational manuals, it seemed not to phase this customer. He could not see how Scotchbrite and primer application would provide enough of a foundation to thwart adhesion issues if existing urethane (most likely factory) was at 1 mm or even less.

I even tried the structural integrity argument, explaining that if the vehicle was hit again or suffered a rollover, the tempered glass surely would break apart well before the new urethane would release, making his concerns moot. I received such a blank stare in response to this that I thought a stroke had taken place.

I had to leave the last meeting with the adhesive rep in attendance after about 35 minutes to go make money elsewhere. It had seemed that an agreement was reached on what processes would take place. The body shop manager left to supervise his people, leaving the adhesive rep, the claims adjustor and the customer at the car. Then I found out the next day that almost everything that was agreed upon had changed.

As of now, no more work has taken place on the back glass area of the car. The customer is getting a new front fender, but even that has slowed to a crawl with the car being parked with the damaged part removed.

As for the paint issue, this last Thursday the body shop received a visit from the Bay Area Air Quality board, which had received a request from the customer to have a VOC primer used on the car. An inspector was sent out to verify compliance by the body shop of its paperwork and, in fact, a full inspection of both facility and paperwork took place. The shop passed both and an exemption was issued to use a VOC primer since it represented less than five percent of the shop’s output. Needless to say, customer/ vendor relations could have been strained if a different outcome would have taken place.

I’m sure this tale is far from over. The glass is yet to be installed and I wonder if I need to call in Jeff Olive or Jamie Browning as my installation assistants. I may even try to have Bob Beranek critique the job via web cam as I begin the re-install. I fear my customer perhaps has already contacted one of them to receive private lessons on installation techniques to enhance their knowledge of procedures. I am sure as I prime and set this back glass, the customer will be in attendance and taping my actions for posterity or, as every TPA likes to say, “for quality purposes only.” Perhaps he will recite passages from the AGRSS Standard to me as I wash the glass. Maybe Jamie, Bob or Jeff will drop by with doughnuts. Tequila would be more appreciated.

No one has said, “Stop! Let us do our jobs!” The claims adjustor who is also the district supervisor wants the customer to be happy, I suppose, because the insured was inconvenienced by the company’s first referral. The body shop manager simply wants to keep the insurer happy and I am following the parade because I need to keep this valuable vendor (the body shop) sane and not vengeful that I was the reason this person came to his shop.

Is there a moral to this story? Not one that I can state yet. However, I think I can contact the U.S. government and inform them that a new asset exists in their arsenal. I truly believe that this person can be sent anywhere as “an expert” and affect change. I wonder if he would like living in Ohio?

The incident last week involving an airline steward’s dramatic exiting an airplane after a confrontation with an unruly passenger caught America’s interest. I think what made this event so newsworthy was the fact that people are curious about how much pressure an overworked and stressed-out American worker can take before saying “hasta la vista baby” to his job. By the way, anyone out there in auto glass land feel that way? 

Steven Slater had his 15 minutes of fame in New York. He seemed to be a mild-mannered employee, but after allegedly being hit by a bag and cursed by a rude passenger, he took to the plane’s intercom, first returned the woman’s invective, then publicly resigned by saying, “I quit!” He then discharged one of the plane’s emergency slides, grabbed two beers from the drink cart and left the plane via slide. 

This became a media “cause celebre” simply because first it happened in the largest media center in the country, it was a slow news day and it happens to depict in a simple fashion how frustrated and stressed out American workers are getting. 

Fortunately we in the auto glass industry don’t fly or work around airplanes, but I would bet there are a large number of us who feel a great deal of stress on a daily basis either from our jobs or just by the economic state in which we find ourselves.

Let’s talk about our job first. How easy is it? We are approaching the end of summer when our work load is usually the highest. Daylight is longer, the temperatures are warmer and people are driving more, making opportunities for replacement and repairs increase.

I haven’t found a person yet who says that being in the auto glass trade is a cushy job. It seems most people acknowledge that we techs have a fairly physical job (some AGR managers excepted). Whether it is installing, driving a distributor’s delivery truck or being a CSR, there is a physical toll that is being taken daily on us. We can feel pain in our hands, back and legs by the time Friday afternoon rolls around, if not four nights sooner.

You can sense a real feeling of impending doom out there by American workers. We are being “leaned out” by attrition and layoffs and are asked to produce more in a shorter amount of time. Companies are placing larger burdens on employees with little financial reward. Many of the self-employed have become desperate and have lowered profit margins to attract business of any ilk, thereby setting a stage for working longer and harder for far less money. Many of us are biting our tongues at these changes because there also is an underlying fear that there is not another job or opportunity out there that we can easily slide into.

Read any business page and you can see that large corporations are making larger profits and stockpiling cash. Many have cut costs by slicing employees and cutting back on benefits to realize such gains. Just look at what some of our largest in our industry have done lately. Older techs get pushed out to be replaced by younger, cheaper, more pliable and possibly more productive (in numbers) employees. Distribution centers are built with an accent on technology and minimizing personnel. As wholesale markets are being abandoned or downsized by some with warehouse closures, longer routes with more stops will become the norm. Is any company more likely to increase workloads for existing employees rather than to hire more help? Ask a call center employee or installation tech if they are working to maximum capacity. It sure seems that way. The nation’s productivity climbed to 3.6 percent last quarter, doubling the normal 1.5 percent, meaning fewer workers produced more goods. By the way, did anyone’s wallet see more green?

Customers have also become more demanding. They “want it now and want it all.” With the business malaise we have experienced, too many companies seem to take the Burger King approach of allowing the customer to “have it their way,” usually at the expense of their employees.

How many “happy” upbeat people are you running into lately? I am seeing far too many people working too hard, too long and with little hope for a short-term recovery. It is sort of like watching society as a whole be placed in a pressure cooker with a lid securely fastened. The question is looming more of when (and not if) we will witness more incidents similar to what happened at JFK last week. Sad to say, while Steven Slater’s actions certainly inconvenienced passengers on that flight by delaying disembarking, at least no physical harm took place. That can’t be said about the increasing number of job site violence incidents that have been taking place throughout the country.

What Steven Slater did was wrong, but I find myself strangely sympathetic with his actions. If you appreciate a certain flair for an exit strategy, he certainly provided one. How many times has any tech wished he could remove a windshield and then leave the jobsite, leaving an annoying customer with an empty hole in his car? How many CSRs wish they could hang up on a caller? Last, but not least, for the sake of my liability carrier, I will not provide fodder for any creative action that someone could perform in telling his/her boss or manager, “Take this job and shove it!”

And, for those who feel self-employment is the bastion of personal freedom, I have never taken more than four days off in a row, always bracketing a weekend or holiday, in more than seven years. A two-week vacation? You have to be joking. We have our own set of trials and tribulations that beset us.

History has shown us that the pendulum will swing back. “Happy Days” will return someday. Hopefully respect for our labors will, too. We are not animals or drones. However, most people as kids loved slides. Wheeee …