View From The Trenches

One of the most underrated and stressful tasks an auto glazier has to perform is removals and replacements (R&Rs). Sometimes they are referred to as R&Is (for install). No matter what one calls them, it can be a dirty and hazardous task along with being both physically and mentally challenging. Along with every other labor function, being fairly paid for such operations has taken a sad turn for the worse. I would like to add a few words of protest.

I am not sure what body or glass shops, along with adjustors, are thinking. Removals have not gotten any easier as far as auto designs go. We have so many vehicles that have encapsulated quarter glass or backlites. Take almost any German auto manufacturer and one will find so many wired elements built into a back glass that damaging a component is an everyday risk. Add that designers have incorporated more laminated glass to increase soundproofing or have created such tight tolerances to discourage air flow disruption. All of these factors and more add up to making removals more tough to perform in a timely and profitable manner.

Now, our removal technology has risen from the stone-age—well, sort of. Twenty-five years ago wire was the most commonly used tool to take urethane adhered glass out of vehicles. Sharpened putty knives used like chisels were also popular. Today, there are electric and air tools that have the sole purpose of making any sort of removal less physically strenuous. However to counterbalance that asset, those very same tools in the hands of someone without patience can, and oftentimes will, cause unintended collateral damage to the surrounding areas or the glass assembly itself.

Wire has also evolved. We have gone from the type used in pianos to that of being braided or “squared.” Those advancements have allowed technicians to use less physical effort to cut through urethanes and mounting pegs. Wire is acknowledged as perhaps being the least potentially detrimental to a car’s pinchweld and side wall. Today there are manual and powered wire spool devices coming into use that are designed to encircle a windshield and cut the urethane as it is drawn inward. As with any technology, these implements of “mess destruction” cost money to purchase. In fact, any removal tool other than a simple spool of wire and two handles costs many hundreds of dollars to purchase.

Putting glass back into a repaired vehicle is not without drama or debate. There are AGRSS standards that frown upon the use of used glass (what does one call a part that one has removed?). Urethane adhesion to newly painted surfaces is also problematical.  Perhaps Mercedes’ policy of not painting pinchwelds is the best answer but one has to take in consideration the gassing of new paint which affects urethane adhesion and educating both the body or glass shop in proper surface preparation to prevent adhesion failure or corrosion.

Add into the equation that adjustors along with body shop owners expect the impossible when R&Rs are called for. By impossible, I mean that no damage or breakage should occur in their minds and that they make every effort to assess the removing glass shop’s responsibility for anything other than perfection.

So with tougher removals of expensive glass assemblies, higher costs of tools and more preparation needed for proper adhesion along with liability demands, why are the rates for R&Rs dropping faster than Texas hailstones?

Labor rates have been under pressure from two sources. Some insurers will cite R&R rates quoted to them by Safelite under what I presume are contractual parameters made through TPA management. What I have heard and observed in some urban areas is that Safelite distains such work due to profitability issues, which leaves such activities to independents who will accept those rates, if not lower them further to gain customers.

Competition is further encouraged since glass removals are included in many repair operations and the collision shop can retain more profit for themselves by farming out such work to low bidders.

I wrote about this subject almost three years ago and the slide downward has not continued to abate. I have a colleague here in San Jose that handles a body shop account that works mainly on late model Mercedes priced well over $100K. He was told recently to cut his labor charge to under the century mark for removals due to demands from competition and insurers. This is on cars that have encapsulated laminated back glass that can cost in the thousands of dollars. In fact, there is no bargain glass anywhere on a Mercedes. During three years as a vendor he has never lost a windshield or back glass during removal, never had a comeback and shows up upon request. The financial liability he incurs is tremendous and no regard is given to either his proficiency, professionalism or his costs of doing business. He is caught in a real bind as the shop has grown in size and has developed into his largest account. Yet, he is being squeezed lower and lower to satisfy someone else’s bottom line.

One reason for this type of situation is that in the San Francisco Bay Area we have, like many other areas, mobile services that pander to large insurance driven production collision repair centers. Since these body shops run large crews on two shifts, demands for R&Rs occur both day and night and on weekends as well. Far too many of those who are servicing glass concerns are underground and have a murky legal existence, if any. Yet, they have become established simply due to pricing and availability. I have observed a few of these “services” in action during both the removal and install phases and I shudder in agony at their lack of adherence to existing professional standards.

The craft of auto glass glazing has allowed itself to be compromised, if not sacrificed on the altar of “free enterprise.”  It seems more of us are doing more “free” work or just being paid less for it. Nowhere is that fact more clear when doing collision related glazing. We are allowing outside forces to influence, if not control, certain levels of pricing. To add insult to injury, it seems anyone (and I mean anyone) is free to call themselves auto glass professionals. Many of those are as much to blame for our profit woes as any single insurer, TPA or body shop. The reason being the only business model they know is to undercut the competition to gain access to markets which plays into the hands of those who wish to devalue our craft. It is a vicious cycle that is self-induced and self perpetuating, which is in turn leading to self-destruction.

I am one of those auto glaziers that like the challenge of body shop work. It is hard, oftentimes noisy and dirty, but full of variety. For me, it is a chance to form friendships, practice teamwork and the ability to learn to swear in at least three different languages, if not more. I simply want to be paid fairly for the craft that I practice, the costs incurred and the risk that I assume. Insurers do that—successful body shops as well—so why not auto glass? When and why did this industry become the red-headed stepchild to be minimized? The answer to that question needs a mirror and a Mitchell-based algorithm.