View From The Trenches

Last week, while finishing up an install, I received a call from a CSR representing an insurer glass network. A dealer client of mine had given my name to them and this person had an insured on their back line that needed a windshield replacement. “No problem,” I said. “I can handle it.”

That started a 45-minute 4-way conversation among the CSR, the insured, a translator and myself. It seems that my newly found client could only speak Japanese and it became a tedious procedure of speaking in short sentences to determine what had to be done, where it was to be done at and why I had to do it.

One thing I had to clarify was whether the customer expected an OE windshield. He did and the insurance company would not pay for it, despite the fact that the age of the vehicle was two model years old. That conversation alone took between five to ten minutes and I was not privy to the three of them discussed. The customer agreed to accept an aftermarket windshield, which resolved the matter. Date and location was determined and I finally was released from the call.

The install appointment was set as the first appointment of the week and on my way over to the job, I picked up an OE moulding from the dealer.

My customer owned a Toyota Sienna. As I walked over to inspect the van, I could not first find an apparent reason for the replacement. I looked along the frit area, by the wipers and up in the shade band and still found no visible crack. When I started to re-inspect the glass again, my customer (I think sensing my curiosity), pointed to the low center of the windshield. There, as plain as day, was a small combination stone break that was no larger than a dime.

I am an old Novus guy who sold his franchises to a long-time employee of mine more than 15 years ago. I saw immediately that the break was extremely repairable and it was in the best interest of the customer to repair, not replace, the windshield. The problem was, I was going to be out of the picture since I would be subletting the repair to my friend. I would be forgoing a fairly profitable job and receive zero compensation for “doing the right thing,” despite spending a significant amount of time arranging and getting to the job. I had the glass, the moulding and, most of all, the time to replace his windshield. My question, in these tough economic times, was what does one do?

Without hesitation, it was to call and arrange for my friend to drive over that same day and repair the Sienna windshield. Since the claim was assigned to me, I’ll bill the repair as a favor for my buddy. The “allowable” charge is the same as he charges. My cut? It was zip, zero and zilch. Everyone benefited from this transaction except for my company. The happy and very surprised customer paid nothing and a windshield was fixed. The insurer’s loss was cut by a few hundred dollars. The repair service was fairly compensated.

Am I frustrated? Do I regret my actions, and would I repeat doing the same thing again under similar circumstances?

The answer is yes to all three. The last thing I want is to sound pious and saintly, but what concerns me the most is my affirmative answer to the first two questions. I have tried never to look at a customer as a dollar sign, but, I’ll admit, it hurt to lose this customer. Yet it doesn’t change the fact that I can look at myself in the mirror and know I did the “right thing” for that person.

I can’t explain how I became imbued with the spirit of the “do no harm” phrase that is contained in the Hippocratic Oath that a doctor takes. Perhaps I watched too many TV medical series growing up. When I see a rusted pinchweld, an obviously wrong moulding installed or glued on, a cowl with visible cured urethane, I see a maimed customer and an obvious complication to whatever I need to do. I have remained in business for almost 30 years with trying to take the long-term view of trying to make a customer mine for life with good service and honest work. My basic concept is to treat people the same way I want to be treated and even as I am struggling to deal with a soft economy, I have to live with myself first and be true to my basic credo. To those people who opine that I should have done the repair myself, I gave my word 15 years ago to my friend/buyer that I would not do repairs in our area. We trade referrals all the time but, most of all, giving my word still means something to me.

This isn’t a perfect world nor will it ever be. Yet how we conduct ourselves as businessmen and craftsmen can change attitudes, reputations and expectations. As independents, how do we perceive our customers and does that attitude reflect personal values? I will always believe that a smaller operation has a much easier time retaining its humanity than a large one.

What is the point of this blog? I hope it shows that the war within never stops with time. I suppose the word “conscience” also should be brought up. A business needs to have one. If Wall Street and other world financial centers had actually applied that word to its normal everyday actions, words like “recession,” “bailouts” and “layoffs” would not be used on an hourly basis. In short, the Golden Rule should not have a price tag on it.

Ask an auto glazier to name one skill set that they hate to employ on a daily basis and I believe that doing removals and reinstalls (R&Is) for body shops would score high on many lists. The job is a thankless one and as time goes by, like many things in this industry, is becoming less and less profitable while the risks spirals higher.

Today’s auto designs incorporate encapsulated glass parts along with an increasing trend of flush mount raw-edge quarter glasses and backlites which can make removals both arduous and many times problematical. Both insurance adjustors and body shop managers tend to disregard the level of difficulty and liability by making payment for these operations a subject of debate.

Removing undamaged glass by its very nature is a collision cost-saving function, yet why are glass shops asked to bear all sorts of liabilities without any commensurate remuneration? Why do glass shops even consider doing such work without considering the total cost and actual liability that could occur by doing R&Is?

Let’s face it; doing removals is by nature neither fast nor easy. Over time I have used every tool except inductors to remove glass awaiting body repair. No doubt air tools certainly have changed the equation regarding time spent in doing removals for the better. With that said, it has perhaps the greatest potential to inflict collateral damage both on the part being removed and to the surrounding body area. How many techs actually change blades as the situation demand to minimize harm? When my air tool had to be replaced, the decision was made not to and I returned to doing it “old school” with cold knives, wire and a cordless removal tool. It is slower and more physically demanding but liability issues have almost evaporated.

Some have stated (accurately) that under present circumstances, doing R&Is is hardly financially viable. In my area, adjustors often cite R&I prices provided by their glass claims administrators. Other adjusters quote Mitchell operation hours that often include glass removal in quarter-panel and roof replacements. In this way, body and glass shops frequently are set against each other to retain profit. This has had the side effect of causing a political division between the two principal crafts within the collision industry and probably does not displease the casualty insurers.

How have glass shops allowed this operation to become a subject of downward spiraling rates? The degree of difficulty has increased. The cost of labor and travel has increased along with materials such as adhesives. Adjustors and body shops expect miracles having immaculate detachments with encapsulated parts while paying with chainsaw quality rates. In this case, glass shops have no one else to blame but themselves as some rush to fill the vacuum as others refuse to play this ridiculous version of the glazing Limbo game of ”How Low Can You Go?”

The liability for collateral damage to glass and to surrounding body areas should be a non-issue. That subject should be the first topic discussed and agreed upon between glass and body shops and it should not be fluid pact. Glass can and will break. Mouldings and encapsulations are not indestructible. Adhesives are not always readily accessible. Nearby paint and sheet metal may not always be resistant to contact. If a glass shop takes on a collision repair center, it has to spell out beforehand who is responsible for what. Auto glaziers are neither magicians nor mentalists. R&Is are a contact event and from my biased viewpoint, glaziers should bear very little liability, if any, for breakage or collateral damage unless the tech is grossly negligent.

Returning the removed part back to the repaired vehicle has issues all of its own. It is my understanding that the Auto Glass Replacement Safety Standard (AGRSS) frowns on re-installing used glass since there is always a question of non-compatible adhesive systems. Trying to explain that concept to an insurance adjustor or collision repair owner/manager has more drama than any Jerry Springer show could conjure up. Urethane compatibility or at least proper surface preparations are two topics of which every tech should be aware. In theory, we, the glazing techs, are supposed to be the authority on these topics. In the real world, sadly that isn’t the case. Too many times, I have observed situations where pinchwelds lacked any sort of surface prep and had suffered adhesion failures or corrosion. Ignorance on proper procedure is one reason that comes to mind for these mistakes and I surmise that the reason for these actions starts with cutting steps out to save time therefore money. It’s proof again that this industry suffers from a lack of professionalism due to the fact that many who call themselves glass techs have no concept of what this craft demands from either the technical and business side and sad to say, too many have neither.

R&Is are here to stay. They are a fact of life and will be for some time to come. As long as catastrophic hailstorms occur or as people drive cars, the need to repair auto body damage will not cease. Removing glass parts to allow that to take place will not stop as well. We in the auto glass industry need to restore respect and financial sanity to that operation. It can be inherently difficult, physically demanding and be legally obligating with long-term liability issues. If we don’t take steps to halt this rush and acceptance of declining payment rates, we are dooming ourselves into oblivion. Too many of us are concentrating on the carrot of today that is being dangled in front of us by others. If we want a future, we need to be far more mindful of what constitutes sound business practices and financial return. Without that, we are just foolish dogs chasing our own tails.