View From The Trenches

While trying to ponder the intricacies of scoring in Olympic curling this past weekend, I thought it might be easier to tackle a less complex subject that concerns auto glass—why insurers consider rust a “natural phenomenon” and refuse to pay for its repair when corrosion is encountered at the time of replacement.

Is metal oxidation on vehicles a “natural” occurrence if you appear to be liable to pay for its restoration? That is like asking, “Do the Waltons take too long to say goodnight?” The correct answer is: It depends on who may be liable.

Metals rust. That is a scientific fact yet, due to technological advances in metallurgy along with auto design, production and coatings, many vehicles these days have the tools necessary to resist oxidation unless something takes place to damage its surface or structure. That “something” all too often sadly can be traced to a previous glass replacement. Adding insult to injury, the shop that most likely caused the rust once was recommended or had been directed by the insurer in the first place.

How common is finding rust on a car these days? With high-strength steels and e-coatings, the chances have dimmed considerably from 40 years ago. Let me relate how things have changed over the years.

I grew up in western New York and remember one of my father’s November duties was to coat the family Ford in cosmoline to protect the car from the capricious effects of winter road salt on the metal. Usually it was to no avail. My folks, at one time, sold a 7-year-old old Fairlane to my neighbor’s teenager for $25 due to its rusted state. The car lasted for less than a year as the motor was found lying beneath the car in the high school parking lot.

So what causes rust when it involves auto glass replacement? Why is it so prevalent? Has corrosion become the “dirty little secret” of our industry? The next most common query is: Why can’t we get paid to repair someone else’s negligence?

I wonder what effect the increase of mobile installation in the past 15 years has had with the prevalence of rust in glass replacement. In many parts of the United States, there are far too many days when ideal installation conditions just do not exist. Do cold- or wet-weather installs increase the chances for rust? It would seem likely that some technicians would take shortcuts or eliminate time consuming prep steps while working under harsh weather or scheduling demands. Then again, in my part of California (where it allegedly never rains but does), there appears more the attitude of “What, me worry?” or “Que sera, sera!” when it comes to applying such a substance.

Surface damage first starts with glass removal and how many techs out there take that concept into consideration when their time and efforts are at stake? There are some very obvious cases when none is ever taken. I’ll concede there are some technicians who wield their air or electric removal tools with the deft skill of a surgeon, making little or no contact with sheet metal. However, there appears to me thousands more installers (removers might be a better term) that should be working as “Axe Men” in the lumber industry.

Once the glass is out, how much care is taken to remove the old urethane? By the looks of many replacements and the rust that has sprouted up, one could possibly surmise that far too many installers find the utility knife as the blade of blame (oops, I mean choice). It could be worse, however; I’ve seen wood chisels be used in urethane removal. I also realize that scraper options also exist for power tools. I can’t say I’ve ever used one, but I bet the Humane Society for Auto Glass Installation could find a reason to protest its use by many a technician.

After all materials are removed, it all has to do with surface prep and repair. It becomes a simple matter to clean, prep and prime the pinchweld in order to seal it against corrosion and provide the best possible surface for proper adhesion. Priming is a simple task, yet it is the most basic procedure that is all too often ignored or compressed that opens the door to rust. Is using a pinchweld primer a guarantee against the formation of rust? I’ve been told the answer is no, but ignore the application of a metal primer and you virtually guarantee that rust will result.

Writing about primer, I am coming to the conclusion that there are far too many “installers” who believe that applying such a substance must show a failure in their manhood. There should be some industry-wide educational effort to convince technicians that pinchweld primer is not Agent Orange and needs to be used in the course of many installations.

I’ve had contact with techs from Alaska, south to Texas and east to New York and the one of the most frustrating topics universally is post-install rust. Everyone finds it and first communication of that discovery to the vehicle’s owner has hazards and complications all of its own. Fixing rust has issues and getting paid for your labors and materials can be another.

The point is that rust is not “normal” nor should it be considered “normal wear and tear.” It may only be normal if the glass has been torn out beforehand. Once confronted with such metallic cancer, your options are limited while your liability expands. The discovery of corrosion usually occurs well into your own install, making repair almost obligatory. Sadly there are too many cases where the rust is so far advanced that replacement operations are halted while body repair measures are implemented.

Who should pay for this extra negligence-induced expense? From my viewpoint, financial responsibility should revert back to the last shop that worked on the customer’s vehicle. Whether the insured or directing insurer decides to sue, it personally makes no difference to me. These kinds of situations validate in a grand manner the necessity for tracing all installs back to the responsible shop, a concept that will be met with complete antipathy by far too many glass concerns. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and if a shop or a technician understands that by taking shortcuts that they may very well end up paying a far higher price in repairing the after effects of their actions, we may eventually see a reduction in the damage caused by these irresponsible actions.

What are my chances of seeing that sort of logical and consumer-oriented legislation being enacted? I have a better chance of understanding and speaking the language of curling—meaning that I may possess the hammer and hope not to burn a stone while it goes hog to hog, spoiling my chances for a snowman.

Can anyone define the term Laissez Faire? It is the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.

In short, that is what every businessman wants: little or no regulation of his efforts. It’s also known as “free market.”

Here in the United States, there exists an extreme duality. Our government, both federal and state, makes lots of rules or regulations for businesses and then rarely ever enforces them. Usually it is only when the offense is so egregious or when public safety is affected that it becomes a political issue that is impossible to ignore. OSHA’s inspection policy is one of many examples of this type of regulatory “under sight.”

Take auto glass, for instance. Does every windshield, whether made domestically or elsewhere, properly fit its specific vehicle? How many are distortion-free? If I pick a number and said 80 percent, that means 20 percent do not. If you had a failure rate of 20 percent in airline flights, one may not fly. If there was a 20 percent chance a heart pacemaker might fail, that might cause a slight lack of confidence in your cardiologist. The Department of Agriculture has a standard that determines the amount of rat feces that can be found in produced foods. Keep that number in mind when you buy a box of cereal.

Now, back to auto glass. All DOT standards are minimums. There are no recommended upper limits. One DOT test consists of a weighted ball when dropped from a specific height cannot penetrate a test windshield under laboratory conditions. AS1 laminated glass has to be of specific minimum thickness. How a glass is supposed to fit its specific make or model is not a regulated standard. How easy a windshield cracks has not been an overly legislated or even debated topic. Returning to the real world, can AG people unequivocally state that all windshields are the same? The debate of OE over aftermarket will rage on for decades only because the standards for such products are loosely drawn and give the public a false sense of assurance that equal quality exists. To many glass insiders, it is another issue altogether.

Perception and not performance has been the goal for many companies. That easily can be a public credo for members of our industry. You can profess to install auto glass at a high in-house standard, but it begs the question: Is the same technician sent to install a windshield in an insurance VP’s car as the one installing windshields in the local car rental agency? Would the procedure be the same? Would the glass be the same?

The biggest beef I have with our industry giant is that there still appears to be a very large gap between its promoted image and the reality. If they are to be leaders, I want them to truly lead. It has been years since Belron has become legally responsible for its American counterpart and how much “real” improvement have we seen? Does its manufactured products still have basic flaws like mirror bracket adhesion and visual distortions? In its repair and replacement division, aren’t its pay plans still skewed toward numbers and production? The other “reality” is that management still works to maintain complete deniability for workloads and installation practices, putting all responsibility on the technicians alone.

The latest industry brouhaha that appears to be brewing is the “Struggle of the Standards.” Our international glass giant may be co-opting one validating agency while the independents promote their own. Personally I just want professionalism and craftsmanship to return as a required standard for the entire industry for every install, but I question how this could impact the industry.

Will attitudes on rental fleet installations change? Wipers up or down? How high should a cowl be when stuffing a windshield underneath? I am picking on Belron, not because independents don’t commit the same sins, but because of what I perceive as an insincere piety the company seems to proclaim publicly. The lipstick-on-a-pig theory can be applied to corporate glass as it is in political discourse.

This is where laissez faire comes into play. Nobody (whether it’s a public agency or John Q Citizen) really cares about most products or services until some publicized misfortune strikes (such as the Toyota gas pedal recalls). People often just assume something sold in stores, advertised on TV or read on the Internet safe or effective. In truth, there exists so little oversight (or in some cases that review is stifled under political pressure) that people literally have to die before government acts.

Every day as I starts my installation day, I am filled with doubt. At no time in my 30 years of experience has the probability of receiving an aftermarket replacement glass with some defect been so high. Dread mixed with loathing is the emotion most often felt as I visit and mix with proclaimed “installers” at area glass distributors. I can’t help but be angry as I share a parking lot and look around at either a national or regionally employed, a presumably certified “technician” who skips steps or performs shortcuts just to save time.

Someday I truly wish that our industry “chickens” would come home to roost, so that the American public is made aware of the shortcomings that exist from within. Perhaps the philosophy that “a windshield is just a windshield” and any self-proclaimed installer can attach it can be widely dismissed by some well-publicized event or documentary. Then again if you truly believe in laissez faire economics, it’s “catch me if you can.” Sadly, it seems to be the prevailing mantra of these times. It’s too bad that Adam Smith, the author of the laissez faire theory, didn’t live in a time that required windshield replacement. He might have had a change of heart.

Last week, while working at a local Toyota dealership, a van for a local TV station pulled into the Service Department nearby me and started to set up for a remote. The service manager showed up a few minutes later and was pacing around the lot waiting to be interviewed about the latest issues concerning the massive recalls that Toyota has issued for many of its vehicles.

As they were packing up, I approached one of the production people and asked him if he wanted to see a real safety issue and the gentleman looked at me like I had just landed from Mars. I mentioned that I could show him a problem that I would bet would overshadow in numbers any actual failure of Toyota accelerator hardware. The reason I was working there was what started out to be a water leak repair of an aftermarket install on an 05 RAV4 turned into a R&R created by a complete adhesion failure of this windshield. The guy’s facial response to my inquiry to talk about this issue seemed to say that windshields flying out of cars are not a sexy enough concern for his journalistic endeavors, at least not when it is compared to the bashing of a reputable auto manufacturer.

I simply disagree (and with all due apologies to current media or to notables in our industry who testify to the dangers of production glass failures), the public is put in harm’s way, physically or financially far more with unprofessional aftermarket replacement procedures than anything this recall and others will uncover.

The windshield of the RAV 4 I worked on literally fell out as I ran a stubby cold knife around the upper perimeter. Upon removal there was no urethane residue on 95 percent of the glass. I am not a forensic chemist but unless there was wholesale surface contamination, there had to be an issue with the urethane or its application. Since the glass was very apparently “stuffed” under the cowl, I would surmise that the “installer” probably would not qualify as one of the nation’s best.

Poor auto glass installations are costing American consumers, I would guess, millions of dollars in repairs and puts them at risk during collisions. Yet this issue basically isn’t “sexy” enough to warrant nary a mention on any sort of news coverage. ABC’s 20/20 expose of windshield replacement practices is perhaps the most notable news documentary on that topic. Yet, that quarter-hour consumer report was broadcast more than 10 years ago, a gap in time which is deemed an eternity in the American collective memory.

We are all aware of what sort of damage can occur due to poor installation practices. In the “old” days, you only had a moldy rug and rust to deal with. Today, water intrusion can short out a great number of expensive electrical systems. I can attest to a number of GEM modules in Ford F-150s that water leaks shorted out. Most of these were caused by poor installation rather than from any other warranty issue. Replacing a water logged GEM module cost the customer (or glass shop) more than $1,700 in my part of California.

Ford isn’t the only manufacturer whose models do not tolerate water leaks. In fact there isn’t a single vehicle made today that would not suffer significant damage to its multiple electronic systems if contact by moisture were made. What if that electrical system failed while speeding down a rain drenched freeway at night? Would it rival the stock footage being shown nightly of a fatal accident involving a stuck gas pedal?

The other traumatic horror story to which many can relate is of the “catastrophic release” of urethanes. I had a customer have her vehicle’s backlite lift up and skip off her trunk lid while driving. That certainly could get someone’s attention, whether it was the victim or the person driving behind him or her. Now, some of you readers would have to agree those images indeed would be a visual many news directors would kill for—a flying windshield or backlite. Just imagine how many TV news trucks would be parked atop overpasses with cameras at the ready to capture the first views of aerial lites if massive urethane recalls were publicized.

Many of us can forget about capturing the interest of anyone if the word corrosion is mentioned. Finding rust, much less repairing this commonplace type of installation damage, is about as exciting as watching paint dry. One would need a vivacious blonde Fox News type reporter to breathe any sort of attention getting atmosphere to raise any sort of public awareness and my guess is that then it would be only with 16- to 65-year-old men. Yet how many vehicles in the United States have had or currently have rust eating away at their sub-structures thanks to unprofessional glass installations?

Our industry has been very lucky to escape the type of media scrutiny that is currently enveloping Toyota. It might simply be due to the fact that we AGR folks just aren’t “sexy” enough for TV. I certainly can’t qualify in that department, but with all the face time “Eric” has gotten bouncing in his van lately, you never know.