Cost of a loose gas cap? $86.00 USD according to my dealership

You said it.

How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose it
says
a lot about their "education."[/QUOTE]

That's right.

He did give away some of his time; he gave it away to a law firm that he
knew about, with the express purpose of trying to get some of their
business. That was a BUSINESS decision he made. He knew the law firm.
It wasn't just some yahoo who called up out of the blue and said, "come
fix this!"

BTW, News of the Weird reported recently that an associate at a law firm
didn't show up to work one day, apparently because he was dead. The law
firm billed him and his estate some ungodly amount of money for (a) the
work he was doing that had to be reassigned to someone else as a result
of his death, and (b) their investigation into why he didn't show up for
work. They billed something like $3500 for knocking on his mother's
door and asking her if she'd seen the guy.

So, that law firm was laughing its ass off when this guy said "no, don't
bother paying me, that's OK".

 

Sure. But then the subjectivity of what "value" is enters the picture and tends
to push the discussion into the "irrational" direction and/or the direction
that, "It's the market that determines salaries, stupid."

Maybe "rational economic" was a poor descriptor, and I should have said
something more like, "It seems reasonable to me that I should pay more to a
person who provides a service when he/she paid more to acquire the skills to
give the service."

I'm talking actual skills here. Not the pseudo-skills that, say, a CEO is argued
to have.

Aside: It's not that a CEO has no skills. It's just that they're not skills that
are very impressive to me nor worth the annual salary. If there were a nuclear
holocaust, these guys are "sacrificable."

After a nuclear holocaust, 100 ex-CEOs = 1 good car technician

But the market is what the market does. <shrug>

 

What I like best is when lawyers sue each other.

Sadly, I can believe the anecdote above is completely true.

On the positive side, I do think the attrition rate for new lawyers is much
higher than a few decades ago. Why? Because the competition is so stiff that the
wages are falling and weeding out the incompetent.

I think a much greater proportion of the lawyers today are of the burger
flipper, very low level of competence variety.

Caroline
Writing as an ex-white collar professional retired from the yuppie life that
breeds an inability to change one's own car's oil and, worse, sanctimony about
not being able to do this.

 

didn't take much to get you guys started did it?. techs don't
work for free, we work on flat rate. have for many years. this is
nothing new.
if you go to your doctor and he finds nothing wrong with you you
can damn well bet he will still bill you insurance company. but you
don't care about that until they raise your rates, then the bitching
starts.
Chip

 

You talking to Elmo and me?

It seems clear to me that he and I are on your side here.

Agreed on all counts.

 

Did you read the part about free enterprise that you quoted above, Elmo?
I don't have to do it. They have the right to charge what they want,
and I have the right not to take my business there. [This is why
monopolies are illegal, Elmo; it denigrates this particular right of the
consumer].

You seem to be confusing the semantical meaning of 'legally allowed
within the bounds of our current incarnation of free enterprise', that
is economically *a right*, and 'right' - which such gouging is not.

I am a laissez faire capitalist, and I believe they have *a right* to
charge whatever the market will bear. I experimented with driving the
85 miles to the next closest dealer, as is my right. It didn't prove
economically feasible, due to the cost of my time.

I have absolutely no idea what Starbuck's charges for a cup of coffee,
as I have never been in one. But the charge is not just for the coffee
- it is for the atmosphere and ambiance as well. I don't pay it, but
then I have many choices for coffee. This is not the case with respect
to servicing my Honda, in two aspects: there is no ambiance provided,
and I do not have many choices.

Finally, Elmo, you have completely missed the point. It is
short-sighted *economically* to treat people this way. Eventually,
someone will come along and treat them fairly, and you will lose
customers. This shop has a right to say "**** you" verbally as well as
symbolically when the customer pays his bill, but they don't; they
perceive that doing so would cost them customers. They don't have any
such perception about their abusive charging practices. Presuming they
have given it some consideration, they believe that they cannot be
successfully competed with. They have an exclusive deal with Honda, or
they have some other real or perceived advantage (perhaps to do with
training personnel). Their business model may work in the short term,
but it makes customers unhappy; they don't just feel that they overpaid,
they feel that they were cheated. This will cost in the long run. But
they have a right to conduct business as they wish.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

I disagree that they are more likely to 'never seen the guy again' than
they are to see him come back when he has another problem. I think if
you take a rational examination of the responses you would get if you
proposed the situation to a reasonably large group of individuals, you
would find that I am right. But until you do so, it would be
conjecture. (FWIW I have done so; this kind of business behavior is
anathema to me. But I don't expect you to recognize my results as valid.)

You're reversing cause and effect here, Elmo. There's a reason that
most people used to trust the dealer's shop, and there's a reason that
many (I have no idea what percentage, but I don't suppose it's 'most')
'have serious attitudes about dealer service'. In fact, it is probably
prudent for the dealer to address the issue -- just the way you say the
dealer addresses it with you, but not with new customers. If you enter
into regular business relationships with customers you feel are
basically dishonest, you are not going to succeed in the long run, at
least if there is competition.

There are always examples of any particular notion; there are no doubt
many people in this forum who could tell us true and accurate stories of
people who have ripped off dealers, for various and sundry reasons. The
mistake you've made in your last paragraph is simply the inclusion of
the word 'inherently' in your last sentence. This behavior is in fact
distinctly not inherent. It is a lesson that has been taught, learned
and reinforced.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

I compare business practices wherein I obtain diagnostic service to
business practices wherein I provide them. These are both the same
fruit. I suggest that what I did and the way I did it turned out to be
profitable for me and very satisfactory for the customer. I took a
chance that the customer would not call me the next time they had a
problem, or that they would only call me once more in the case that they
expected other kinds of service for little or nothing. I bet that the
members of the law firm would choose to believe that I am honest about
what I can and cannot do, and would understand that I am hesitant to
charge for effort rather than results. Both of these things are in fact
true.

I grant that in the case of the bulb, the dealer gave results but no
effort. I have not indicated that I believe they should not have been
compensated for it; rather, that I believe a fair (actually the word I
used was 'right') charge would reflect both of these aspects of the
business transaction. I used my own business as a example.

No. I would have charged the firm the book rate, had I been able to get
the proper result. I would not have charged them the book rate had I
only needed to, say, plug in the PC to the wall. Both aspects of the
transaction (effort and result), should be taken into account.

I can't imagine where you get such an idea. <shrug>. What I did in
fact was make some people think I was honest. The firm and the people
there have become some of my best customers because after my second and
third time servicing something for them, they were convinced of it.

As is mine. I have explained why in addition to being exploitive, this
kind of business is less economically advantageous than a more honest
approach would be. How much time (i.e. money) was installing that bulb
worth?

I gather from this last sentence that you did not actually read what I
wrote. I'm not sure why you bothered typing a response. I am a 'white
collar professional', and I have explained why I have grounds to
complain (i.e. it is unwise to make potential repeat customers feel that
they have been cheated by charging them an hourly rate of -- let's see,
from the example, if the bulb cost $2 and replacing took all of 5
minutes -- just over $1000). And yes, I recognize the fairness of using
a book rate, at least in some circumstances. The point is that when the
customer feels cheated, the customer looks elsewhere.

Finally, your penultimate sentence indicates that as long as some
individuals or companies are fucking people over, it must be OK for
anyone to do it. That'll certainly sell in Peoria. Ah, well, as you
say: <shrug>.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

This was not a bulb replacement.

Do you understand what it means when a check engine light comes on?

The techs had to hook up the equipment and take a reading, otherwise, in my
judgment they would have been incompetent. Yes, one has to have some training to
know how to hook up a scanner, to know even that it can be done, take a reading,
and interpret it. IIRC, it doesn't say something as simple as "loose gas cap,"
though that is a pretty good guess, all things considered here.

Your opinion is noted. You can complain about anything you want. My opinion
remains you don't have grounds to do so in this instance.

Yup, this is the bottom line.

It's an economic fact of life that it's okay to charge whatever one can get.

The guy shoulda gone to an independent shop first. I think he has conceded as
much and wisely chalked this up to a lesson learned, as we all have at at least
one time or another.

I don't call this effing people over. That's rather unfair. I call it reality.

 

Stupid analogy.

Prices are posted in a Starbucks, you know what you are going to pay
when you place the order, no surprises.
If you don't want to pay it, you won't order because you know the price
beforehand.

He didn't get a price quote when he went in for service, got the bill,
was surprised by the amount.

That doesn't happen at Starbucks, it's not the same thing.

Then you say 'If people pay for it, it's right", and follow up with
"People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right".

Obviously, this is not your day to make any sense.

The real analogy here, is that a cup of coffee at Starbucks costs $2
plus, for a big one. A $5 cup is a specialty drink, that takes
someone's time, and expertise to make competently, and that is what you
are paying for.

As far as this person's Gas Cap bill, the fact is that a lack of
knowledge will always cost you, either time or money.

Not asking questions beforehand - costs you, either time or money.

Diagnosing a loose gas cap, taking someone's time to do it, and using
someone's equipment and expertise, costs you if you can't do it yourself.

 

Stupid analogy.

Prices are posted in a Starbucks, you know what you are going to pay
when you place the order, no surprises.
If you don't want to pay it, you won't order because you know the price
beforehand.[/QUOTE]

And this differs from the car repair situation....how? Did he ask ahead
of time how much this would cost, or did he just say "fix it" without
asking how much?

I know of no dealer who does not give an estimate at the time the work
order is written, a minimum it would be. Further, you the customer have
to initial that estimate.

The minimum would be $86, because all they did was look at the code and
clear it. You know that, you sign for it, THEN they do the work. This
is NO different than Starbucks.

He got a quote. He just isn't telling us. Further, even if they didn't
offer a quote, why would he ask them to do the work without asking how
much? Either way, the onus is on him. If he wanted to act like Donald
Trump and just throw them the keys and say fix it, that's fine--but
don't bitch about what happens.

 

No. I would have charged the firm the book rate, had I been able to get
the proper result. I would not have charged them the book rate had I
only needed to, say, plug in the PC to the wall. Both aspects of the
transaction (effort and result), should be taken into account.[/QUOTE]

And those lawyers would be laughing their asses off.

You didn't get the results you thought you could get. Let me ask you
this: should you pay the lawyers even though they didn't keep you out
of prison?

 

I disagree that they are more likely to 'never seen the guy again' than
they are to see him come back when he has another problem. I think if
you take a rational examination of the responses you would get if you
proposed the situation to a reasonably large group of individuals, you
would find that I am right. But until you do so, it would be
conjecture. (FWIW I have done so; this kind of business behavior is
anathema to me. But I don't expect you to recognize my results as valid.)[/QUOTE]

You aren't in the car dealership service business. It's an entirely
different beast.

 

That has not been proven, as the dealership service department remains
in business.

 

You aren't in the car dealership service business. It's an entirely
different beast.[/QUOTE]

No, I am not. I am a customer, however. I have been a customer for
many years, and I have talked to many other customers about this.
Again, I don't expect you to simply accept my word, but you might take
the time to ask the people you know how they feel about it, then maybe
some you don't know. Or not.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

And those lawyers would be laughing their asses off.

You didn't get the results you thought you could get. Let me ask you
this: should you pay the lawyers even though they didn't keep you out
of prison?[/QUOTE]

That would depend on my agreement with the lawyers, and on whether they
thought they had done what they were paid to do. In most cases, I
should and I would. And yes, I realize this was intended to be a
rhetorical question.

In my personal experience, by the way, when you tell someone that they
called a specialist in and all they needed was to plug in the machine,
they are sheepish. They might perhaps laugh at themselves after I
leave. In this case, what they did was provide me with business,
whether they laughed or not. That was a hoped-for result, but not the
primary reason I did not charge them. That's more or less my point: it
turns out that honest business practices are also profitable business
practices. I do not mean to imply that charging for one's time
irrespective of results is dishonest. In this particular case, *I*
didn't feel that the customer had gleaned sufficient value to justify
it. How often have you heard a worker in a service shop say, "That's
just the cost, sir/ma'am; there's nothing *I* can do about it." This
was a case where there was something I could do about it. Surely, the
result you outlined could have obtained, with the customer laughing
because I had spent my time for no recompense from him. It didn't, but
it could have. Ah, well.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

That would depend on my agreement with the lawyers,[/QUOTE]

You didn't have a specific agreement with the car dealership. What did
you expect them to do in the absence of any prior agreement?

 

That's disingenuous; you're implying that the Honda dealership dealt in
dishonest business practice, which is most certainly not the case. They
provided an honest service, and did so under honest circumstances.

That you disagreed with it because it cost $86 out of your pocket, is
immaterial to that point.

 

It wasn't my pocket, Elmo; that was the original poster.

Further, my implication was much broader than you presume. I mean to
imply that any business methods which do not provide fair value for
payment are dishonest. In the case at hand, the original poster might
well have decided that he received fair value for his $86, and this
discussion wouldn't be taking place. How does one decide fair value?
That's a good question, because it can be somewhat subjective. Here's a
clue: on several occasions you mentioned customers laughing their asses
off; if no one at the dealership thought it was 'pretty funny' that the
OP paid $86 for a bulb change, then it might have been a fair value.

Treating your customers as if you expect them to be cheats and thieves
*can* work, as you've pointed out. It generally does not, if the
customer base has other options. On the other hand, treating your
customer base as if they had some sense and self-esteem has always
worked. There are certainly individual customers who have neither, but
it's still a good bet.

Commerce works better, longer when both parties to an exchange of value
are satisfied that they have gotten a fair trade. You may subscribe to
P.T. Barnum's dictum, or you may feel that 'whatever the market will
bear' is proper; both of these aphorisms are based in truth. But
ultimately, a prosperous business relationship is based on respect.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

But *you* are appointing *yourself* as the arbiter of what's "fair
value".

Doesn't work that way. Just because *you* don't like something (like I
don't like the $5 cups of Starbucks coffee) doesn't mean it's bad and/or
that "something should be done about it" to eliminate it.

Case in point: a local Starbucks burned down several months ago. It
has sat there, untouched, all these months. No news stories came out
about this, but it turns out that in that same evening, 3 other
Starbucks restaurants across the nation--all of them standalone
buildings--were firebombed. This one nearby was also an arson, as it
turns out. The feds are investigating, and it appears that PETA and
another anti-business organization are being investigated in all this.

Was that right? No, it wasn't. But if you ask those involved, they'll
give you all sorts of reasons why Starbucks is wrong and therefore needs
dealt with. They'll try to rationalize it all to hell. But who are
they to be the arbiter of what's wrong?

And who are you to be the arbiter of what's wrong in a business dealing?
That you may not like it, and that you may not do business that way, is
fine--but that doesn't make those who do business a different way
"wrong" in any sense of the word.