Save your old ties

Save Your Old Ties There are people in the world who save everything, including some remnants of the past. They seem to have real difficulty throwing anything away. I know; I'm one of them. 

In some instances it's a real problem, especially when it comes to stuff that takes up a lot of space, and just about everything takes up too much space when you accumulate a lot of it. If you don't believe me, come over and I'll show you all the clever places I've found to hide stuff when it's time to clean up my office or face the very real possibility that, with my wife's help, a lot of that stuff could actually find its way into the trash. I have the same problem with stuff I've stored in the garage, the shop and in my head.

There are other times when failing to discard something isn't as much of a problem. Issues of memory and clothing are two that come to mind almost immediately. Clothing may be one of the few things it's all right to accumulate because everyone knows that sooner or later whatever it was you just relegated to the back of your closet, the bottom drawer of your dresser, or a corner of the garage is likely to come back into style again -- if you only wait long enough. I've lived long enough to see the truth in this wisdom. I've seen wide ties come and go and then come back again. I've seen skinny ties do the same thing. I've seen double-breasted suits, three-button jackets, vests and even Nehru jackets come and go, appear and disappear, only to find their way to the front cover of Style or GQ all over again. All you have to do is remember -- remember where you put it, remember what you did with it and hope that whatever it was, it's close enough to be considered stylish again.

Clothing and style aren't the only two things that seem to run in cycles. That is where a good memory and a better filing system can come in handy. 

This could not have become any more apparent than it did this morning when my son called to insist I take a look at an article in the business section of the Los Angeles Times (Wednesday, May 26, 2004). The article was all about a lawsuit brought against a PEP Boys Inc. -- Manny, Moe and Jack -- garage in 2002 for fraud and false advertising. The basis of the suit was the use of the labor guide as a means of charging for automotive service. The suit, initially dismissed by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, was sent back to the lower court after the appellate court ruled the Superior Court judge had issued its initial decision too hastily. 

According to the Times, "the lawsuit has opened a window on an arcane method that many auto repair shops use to help determine what they charge motorists."

Suing PEP Boys or challenging the labor guide may not seem like a big deal, but the ramifications of a decision like this could resonate across the industry and throughout the nation. Why? Because the industry has failed to recognize a clear alternative to the guides as the sole method for determining the labor portion of an automotive service invoice. 

What has all this got to do with saving stuff or preserving memories? Quite a bit, actually. 

As I read the Times article a little voice began whispering in my ear. It was trying to remind me that all this seemed oddly familiar. The more I read, the louder the voice became, until I could no longer ignore it. I put the article down and began to sort through almost 40 years of memories, articles and experiences, going back as far as my memory would take me. Evidently, there is a labor guide tab back there somewhere, and when I pulled on the tab I began to remember. I remembered reading an article about a similar case in Maryland in the very early '70s surrounding the use of the labor guide for estimating and invoicing.

The same charges of unfair business practices, fraud and false advertising surfaced then as well. Ultimately, the pressure forced the state legislature to outlaw the use of the labor guide -- or flat-rate manual as it was then known -- for estimating or invoicing. The only problem was the lack of a suitable alternative. Without the ability to reference or project the labor charges for a particular service or repair on to an estimate without having actually performed that service or repair on a particular vehicle or range of vehicles, repair shop owners across Maryland were forced to protect themselves. They did this by charging for the actual time it took to complete that service or repair. As a result, the cost of automotive service literally doubled overnight. As I recall, the article went on to explain how the concern over the use of the labor guide paled in comparison to the uproar that resulted from a twofold increase in the cost of labor. The pressure became so impossible, the state legislature repealed the law and things went back to as close to normal as they ever get in our industry. Now, here we are again, embroiled in a lawsuit that takes us right back to the early 1970s.

I don't necessarily have a problem with heading back in time. It's the reason that gives me heartburn. If we were making the journey because of the clothing or the music or because life was significantly less complicated back then, I'd be the first one on the bus. But, being forced to march backward because of an individual's greed, a lawyer's avarice or the complete and utter failure of the people we serve to understand what we do or how we do it, tends to drive my blood pressure up a few points. It's the pure inequity of it that drives me nuts: having to deal with rules and regulations that no one else seems required to pay any attention to. Other industries either charge purely on the basis of time and materials or by using a compilation of accepted and customary charges, a labor guide of sorts, without having to continually deal with government intervention or oversight. It appears that when it comes to our industry, the doctrine of equal treatment under the law isn't always applied equally.

Aside from that, the labor guide is only a guide. You shouldn't need three years of law school and the BAR exam to figure that out. It's right there in the title. Its purpose is -- or, at least it should be -- to aid shop owners, managers and service advisors in creating an estimate for repairs or services, particularly repairs or services the shop hasn't seen before or for vehicles upon which that particular service or repair has not yet been performed. 

But, there are other, deeper problems that surface with any discussion of charging for automotive service by the piece or by the pound; fundamental problems that are inherent in forcing automotive service, maintenance and repair into a piecework model. First of all, I'm not sure we fit. The process of inspection, testing, analysis, evaluation, diagnosis, repair and quality control is not the same as picking strawberries by the bushel, operating a punch press or sewing curtains. Those three examples are highly repetitive, regardless of the level of skill required. Our process is anything but.

Aside from that, the piecework model assumes the interchangeability of the operator/installer for the most part. It strips away the skill, ability and identity of the person actually doing the work. This is perhaps the most powerful reason for any member of a service-based industry to loathe the term "installer," but as far as I am concerned, it is particularly offensive when it is used to describe what you and I do!

It suggests that any two individuals will approach every task with the same interest, enthusiasm, skill and ability, and we all know this is just not the case, at least not in our industry. It assumes that two people with different backgrounds, different training, working in two completely different environments will take the same amount of time to find and fix a problem, and worse yet, it assumes they will be able to perform those tasks in the same amount of time. 

It sounds great on paper. It just doesn't work. No two jobs and no two people are the same regardless of how similar they may appear on paper or in theory. 

For example: Two technicians are told to diagnose and repair a vehicle with an illuminated MIL lamp. Both Technician A and Technician B come to the conclusion the Power Control Module (PCM) has failed. The only problem is that it takes Technician A 30 minutes to come to that conclusion while it takes Technician B one and a half times that long. The labor guide suggests it will take 30 minutes longer to replace the PCM, but Technician A challenges that, stating it is also necessary to check all the actuators, sensors and ground connections to ensure the failure will not recur and that will take significantly longer. Technician B isn't even aware that kind of testing is advisable, let alone necessary. 

What about the investment some shops and technicians are willing to make with regard to tools, training, equipment and technology? How about the intelligence and innovation that comes with a lifetime of experience that helps us determine what doesn't have to be done to diagnose the problem or repair the vehicle? What about finding a better way: what about the failure of the labor guide to include minor details like clean up or cosmetics, research or the cost and time savings that can come from off-site assistance or information? Put all that together and you can see why the whole notion of charging by the pound is absurd.
I'm not sure how this case will be determined, nor am I sure I care. This may be a good time to think about mandatory licensing and certification and a different invoicing model for our industry anyway. It may also be time for us to think about what constitutes ?the perfect' repair or service and then charging accordingly based upon what that job is actually worth, or it may not. This whole thing could blow over and go away tomorrow just like it did 30 years ago.

That's why it probably isn't a bad idea to save everything including this column. You never know when that particular monster will raise its ugly head again. Oh, yeah, and save your old ties too. You never know when they'll be back in style again either.