View From The Trenches

One of the easiest ways to start an argument within the auto glass fraternity is to bring up the term ‘pre-loss condition’ and the legal and ethical effect of the concept upon our industry. From my viewpoint, it has become a common practice of many that fraud is being committed when the installing shop does not explain to the customer that what is being installed as a replacement glass part may well not be any where up to the standard of its original predecessor.

This involves a central debate that swirls around the flood of generic glass, mouldings and adhesives that surrounds our industry. Are these components equal in quality? While there are minimum DOT technical requirements, can it be said that all auto glass from any manufacturer has the same fit, finish and rock resistance? Many of us who are still in the field will argue that there is, indeed, a difference in brands. Many of us who take pride in our work and hate re-dos are fairly picky about what we install in our customers’ cars. The sad truth is that attitude is hardly a universal one with wholesale pricing and availability of parts playing a larger part in the decision-making process of retailers.

Here is a parallel example in the collision industry. The late-model Toyota Prius has a carbon fiber hood that weighs less and costs far more than a high-strength steel one. Once the part is painted, it “looks” the same. Substituting the cheaper steel part obviously has an immediate financial impact but the increased weight ultimately affects fuel consumption and adds to the operating costs nullifying savings to the owner over time. Who should make that choice of which part to use: an insurer or body shop that is trying to save money or the vehicle’s owner who simply wants his car back to “pre-loss” condition?

The above example is somewhat skewed because obviously there is a material difference between carbon fiber and steel. Glass is basically glass. Or is it? This is an area that invites a heated controversy from every direction.

One main reason is that whatever number of standards that exist for the manufacture of auto glass, they are esoteric enough that few in the industry know them or care to which means that the general public has assumed with the industry’s complicity and ignorance that all glass is alike.

Many installers simply have their opinions, formed over time in the field, that glass brands are not alike. Bad bends, visual distortions, over-all fit, lighter weight of replacement parts are issues to name just a few that either make us appreciate certain brands of glass or simply avoid others.
Glass manufacture is not the only issue concerning “pre-loss” condition. What about mouldings?

There seems to be almost a holy quest by many to find and subvert an auto manufacturer’s design by substituting a form of generic moulding for whatever type or style of glass moulding that the car was built with. No matter if the newly installed moulding had a less dense form of plastic or perhaps did not have a wire thread embedded inside the part, there seems to be a concerted effort to find a cheaper alternative to the properly designed part with which the car was built.

Last, but certainly not least in importance, is the adhesive system used and the installation techniques employed by the replacement firm. Did the car have a high-modulus urethane? How were pinchweld scratches addressed? If primers were applied, was adequate time given them to dry? Was urethane application uniform? What kinds of setting operations were employed? Was the customer advised of proper SDAT, curing and any post-install recovery instructions?

The point being made by the most conscientious repair companies and techs is that any real diversion of using cheaper alternative parts or time saving installation techniques without advising the customer beforehand constitutes fraud on the part of the shop and installer. One of the great misnomers in the auto repair business is the term: “like quality.” Simply put, few aftermarket parts meet or exceed the original manufacturer’s specifications and are certified to be so. In many ways it has become an oxymoron and is a term only used by insurers and others to justify in their minds not having to pay for OE parts.

To use an overworked buzzword, what would be the effect upon our industry if the glass retailer had to be more transparent about the replacement parts used in a customer’s vehicle? What if we had to legally certify that all of the newly installed components were of equal or higher quality than those used by the vehicle’s manufacturer? Since efforts to make parts and installs more traceable have failed or been stymied, I wonder if this sort of “consumer protection” would meet the same fate by similar parties.

The entire point of this discourse is to make us reconsider what direction we appear to be taking for this industry. Whether it comes from a cell phone or a corporate phone bank, we are selling almost always price and not any sort of quality. I understand completely that this is a profit-driven industry; however, whatever vehicle is being driven in that undertaking is certainly not to OE standards.

More than 30 years ago, an American vice-president coined the term “The Silent Majority” in trying to identify the everyday citizens who quietly supported the position of the government.

I would like to opine that there exists a similar one here in the auto glass industry. Not only is there a major disconnect between the industry leaders and our worst tailgate scoundrels, but many of us are faced with absorbing the pressure that both groups put on the thousands of reputable shops that exist. Add in a serious international recession and we in this industry are not only facing a struggle to survive, but I also believe that the manner in which auto glass is being installed is at stake, affecting both property and, in some cases, American lives.

My biggest bone to pick with our nation’s largest glass installation company (owned by the world’s largest) is its embrace of corporate mediocrity or worse, making auto glass just a commodity to be marketed to the public instead of a craft to be practiced. In my opinion, this puts them almost on the same level as any tailgate “installer” whose methods and business practices of automotive glazing are subject to scorn.

Outside of capturing a few seats on a glass organization’s board, what has Safelite done to enhance the auto glass industry in this country? Has it fought for tougher standards? Entry levels? Has its glass manufacturing quality improved and gained a positive industry reputation? Regarding its wholesale and distribution arm, has it done anything to stop the pricing slide or to whom they sell their products? In the installation arm of Safelite, is SafeTech just legal window dressing when wages are based on production? Bonuses throughout the company are based on installation numbers and pressure is brought to bear on anyone not meeting corporate-stated goals.

On the other end of the spectrum, it is the cost-plus bottom feeding retailer who cares about nothing but making the sale. Inferior parts, shoddy workmanship and zero pride in their installs coupled with a low, low price to entice unsuspecting customers are the real bane of this industry. In many parts of this country that are spared harsh winters, many of these companies are mobiles. Others attached themselves to wrecking yards or body shops. Some have formed buying groups bonded on ethnic relationships, which drop wholesale prices even lower. Others are home-based techs that supplement their incomes by selling and installing glass acquired through both legal and shady means. The common denominator that binds these discount purveyors is low price usually accompanied by questionable quality of install. The effect that it has on the industry is extremely damaging and dampening because the American public sees auto glass as a monolithic process and not one composed of individual craftsmen.

I can’t think of an industry that is facing such pressure from two different directions. The sad fact is that there is no real “help” out there for many of us, especially those who operate in urban areas. The pricing has spiraled out of control. It is becoming a common everyday experience to hear competitors’ bids that appear to be at most $50 over part acquisition cost. TPA employees are now quoting cash install prices to those insurance clients funneled to them but possess deductibles too high for policy coverage. In both cases, there is a concerted effort to devalue our craft via price wars.

There are many shop owners and corporate employees who instantly would try to defend their practices by shouting out catchwords like “free enterprise” “free market” and “competitive edge.” You would not get an argument from me writer if the playing field were level and the materials and install procedures equal. If we were all selling the same brand of shoes, golf clubs or widgets, the public would be free to make their choices based on price, convenience or any other factor that could be an influence upon their selection. The truth is too many variables exist from glass brand, adhesives and individual installation procedures that can and will affect the overall integrity of any glazed piece of automotive glass. It is my contention that practically no consumer, much less an experienced professional, can detect actual deficiencies of an install without a forensic removal making any sort of choice except based on price almost impossible to make.

It is extremely frustrating to see such a momentous shift in less than a decade. What is most distressing is the devaluation of our craft from those within. From one end, there is a concerted effort to capture so much market share by becoming so closely allied with insurers it becomes almost impossible for the public to distinguish a preferred vendor from the company that they pay premiums to. On the other end of the spectrum, the price-sensitive shopper makes choices based on a single factor unaware of the corners being cut by the installing concern to achieve that price point. For some, it can be the generic glass being supplied by the industry leader’s wholesale arm that aids towards that goal.

The hard truth is that issues such as steering, short pays and branding all pale at the price wars currently being fought from within our industry. With the lack of any sort of consumer guides posts such as glass, moulding or adhesive branding, all products are lumped together as apparently equal. While conscientious owners and techs attempt to provide installs with quality materials, they place themselves at a severe disadvantage with both their upper and lower levels of competition that aren’t as concerned with those same issues.

Is there any relief ahead? I doubt it. The bottom feeding hacks of our trade will always exist because our national distaste for regulations is apparently forever engrained in the DNA of our genes. We have proven time after time that the United States is unwilling to act upon anything unless it becomes a crisis and auto glass installation has not yet reached that level. You need a license to own a dog and cat, cut hair or ink tattoos but in many states you can rip a windshield out of a $30,000 car and slap in some aftermarket part without any regard for corrosion or crash integrity and not prove to any authority that you actually have that professional ability to do so. Trust me, if we ever saw laws passed to control entry or maintain a particular level of professionalism, there would never be enough money appropriated to enforce the enacted regulations.

You would think that our national leader, Belron, would be in the forefront of any effort to improve the state of auto glass in this country. Sadly, I know of no effort of theirs to support any sort of legislation, national or state that would seek to raise the professional level of our trade, curtail easy entry or anything that may improve the industry. I will state in their defense that they may be keeping a low profile to avoid being accused of limiting competition and opening up Federal interest of their nearing monopolistic size and influence in a growing number of areas. Also why would any corporation exude any altruistic reason for change? I am very aware, however, that Belron does know the way inside of the halls of many legislative bodies as it seems to always appear as a supporter of “free market policies” when matters of steering arise from its TPA activities.

In many ways, we, the Silent Majority within the industry, must accept partial responsibility for finding ourselves firmly in the proverbial position of being between a rock and a hard place. We have ignored the symptoms of own decay and how we dismiss the smell of our odious installing segment is a wonder to me. We “talk the talk” but we fail to “walk the walk.” The only way to combat poor materials and installation practices is a two-part path. Legally something has to be done about protecting the American public from the charlatans of this industry. Private property is simply being damaged by those whose goal is only self-serving. Fraud is not too strong a term to use when describing certain business practices that are in use as well.

We in the middle have to promote and identify to the American consumer what constitutes a proper install and why that should be of the greatest concern when making a choice for an auto glass retailer.

If we don’t do something positive soon, the process of being ground into dust is already in place and for many already has started. No doubt if that happens, there will be another reason that silence would reign.

On a personal topic, last week I lost a long-time work companion, fellow commuter and my four-legged garbage disposal. After 16 years, my Lab, Bogey, was put down. He was not the sharpest blade in the box but when it came to unqualified affection, he could win awards. If anyone out there has or had a Labrador, they know that food acquisition is the prime directive for them. As previously mentioned, he was not a scholar; however, Bogey would lie down outside my truck at dealerships and be able to tell which pair of shoes walking toward him had at one time given him snacks. He will be missed dearly.

One political truism is that many government officials forget about the auto glass industry. Perhaps that is how some of our biggest players want it, but it also may be the case of not whining enough about our declining fortunes. Take the stimulus package that passed Congress months back, the construction sector, solar energy and the financial industry were all pretty much awarded corporate welfare dollars and we in auto glass were passed over again.

However, there is hope, if I could make a suggestion. There is an existing program that is in progress today from which we in our industry and nation could benefit. What I would like to propose is a Glass for Clunkers Service that could dovetail quite nicely as our nation trades in their old cars for new.

One national problem we have is an oversupply of uncertified self -styled workers who advertise themselves as “glass installers.” They infest Pennysaver and “Shopper” newspapers and Craigslist postings and have survived solely because distributors will sell to them or at least their employees might out the back door. By instituting a Glass for Clunkers program, we may be able to provide an outlet for these parasites and save U.S. consumers from some of their installs. Here’s how.

These “clunkers” are supposed to be sold off to recyclers and basically taken off the road, never to be driven again. The plan qualifies high-mileage older cars that guzzle gas to be removed from use. In California alone, three million vehicles would be eligible. There already exists a cottage industry of keeping these cars alive and running because these vehicles are the motoring backbone of many of our low-income residents. Why not set up a program to occupy our “Windshields for $100” purveyors with installing any needed glass in these junkers and pay them to do it? That might allow the legitimate shops in the country to have some breathing space in the regular marketplace. In theory, the installs that the hacks perform should never see a highway again, much less a re-positioned cowl.

Domestic glass manufacturers also should benefit. According to Yahoo!® Financial, all top-ten clunker trade-ins were American SUVs and vans. The first three places would require a DW1206. If the Glass for Clunkers program was inaugurated, the government should mandate that only glass that is American owned and manufactured in NAFTA limited zones would be installed. That would eliminate any foreign profiteering for an American problem. On another procedural matter, a shop would be mandated to produce an actual receipt from a verifiable glass distributor in order to qualify for payment.

Why should just the hacks benefit and not regular shops from this proposed program? Heck, I don’t know? But it seems to me that the more we isolate the “less quality sensitive” providers of our industry into sectors to which they can do the less harm, the entire spectrum of the auto glass may improve. This way, many of us can concentrate and actually make a profit on every job we bid. Up to this point in time, the industry seems to accept the existence of such marginal practitioners of this trade and it has done nothing but lower our collective reputation to the public at large.

The “Glass for Clunkers” program may never come to fruition, but, in this country, there always lurks the chance that this sort of giveaway may take place. Figuring out how a third-party administrator can benefit from implementation of this proposed plan might be the surest way to see it become a reality.