Honda Car Forum

In article <fPKTc.22765$9Y6.9000@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who
> > walk in the door?
>
> You said it.
>
> How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose it
> says
> a lot about their "education."

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".

"Steve Bigelow" <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> > Exception: The cost of the actual tuition-based education should factor
> into how
> > much a person makes, as a rational economic matter.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I would have thought rational economics would have compensation based on
> value to client, not cost to provider.

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>

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who
> > > walk in the door?
> >
> > You said it.
> >
> > How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose it
> > says
> > a lot about their "education."
>
> 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".

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.

"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<FjNTc.652$3O3.161@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net>...
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
> > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who
> > > > walk in the door?
> > >
> > > You said it.
> > >
> > > How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose it
> > > says
> > > a lot about their "education."
>

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

"Chip Stein" <chip@chipanddebby.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
> > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who
> > > > > walk in the door?
> > > >
> > > > You said it.
> > > >
> > > > How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose
it
> > > > says
> > > > a lot about their "education."
> >
>
> didn't take much to get you guys started did it?.

You talking to Elmo and me?

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

> 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.

Agreed on all counts.

On 8/15/2004 6:40 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:

> In article <wCBTc.34465$wM.11543@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for
>> service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot.
>
> If people pay for it, it's right.
>
> People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right,
> not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be
> allowed to charge that for a cup of coffee?
>
> If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it.

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
--
Would I ask you a rhetorical question?

On 8/15/2004 6:43 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:


> In article <wCBTc.34465$wM.11543@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a
>> company that services computers, and does networking and other
>> computer-related work (www.wetumpkatechnology.com). Not long ago, I was
>> called to a law office to diagnose a computer problem. Although I spent
>> two hours, I was unable to determine the cause of the problem. My
>> hourly rate is $90, but in this case I chose not to charge even the $35
>> rate I charge just to show up. I told them that I didn't find, much
>> less fix, the problem. I told them (well, wrote down for them) what to
>> say to the manufacturer to take the next step in resolving it.
>>
>> That law firm has become one of my best customers; I have worked on
>> their systems, and worked on the home PCs of some of the employees as well.
>>
>> Because they trust me not to **** 'em over on the price, and not to
>> bullshit with them. Because I took a chance and didn't charge them when
>> I couldn't help them.
>>
>> This economic model works; older people will tell you that that's how it
>> used to work all the time. It still does - or can.
>
> It works for me all day long at my favorite Honda dealership. But we
> have a relationship that goes back over 20 years.
>
> When some random Joe walks in the door, someone they've never see before
> and therefore never expect to see again, it's a crap shoot. They can do
> it your way, and probably never see the guy again--in fact, read
> postings on the Usenet about how "I screwed that stealer, he gave it to
> me"--or they could do it by the book.

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.)


> Given the number of people who have serious attitudes about dealership
> service, it's probably prudent nowadays for the dealer to charge in
> those circumstances. The dealership is better off waiting to see if a
> customer will be a long term customer, and then take care of him. It's
> probably not prudent for the dealer to give stuff away and hope that
> such a gesture is meaningful, in this day and age of people inherently
> distrusting the dealership for no reason other than "it's the
> stealership, what did you expect".

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
--
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

On 8/15/2004 9:37 AM Caroline spake these words of knowledge:


> "Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
> snip
>> I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a
>> company that services computers, and does networking and other
>> computer-related work (www.wetumpkatechnology.com). Not long ago, I was
>> called to a law office to diagnose a computer problem. Although I spent
>> two hours, I was unable to determine the cause of the problem. My
>> hourly rate is $90, but in this case I chose not to charge even the $35
>> rate I charge just to show up. I told them that I didn't find, much
>> less fix, the problem. I told them (well, wrote down for them) what to
>> say to the manufacturer to take the next step in resolving it.
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges.

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.


> What you did was essentially offer a teaser rate.

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.


>> That law firm has become one of my best customers; I have worked on
>> their systems, and worked on the home PCs of some of the employees as well.
>
> You've simply undercut the market <shrug>.

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.


>> Because they trust me not to **** 'em over on the price, and not to
>> bullshit with them. Because I took a chance and didn't charge them when
>> I couldn't help them.
>>
>> This economic model works; older people will tell you that that's how it
>> used to work all the time. It still does - or can.
>
> So too does the economic model that a person's time is worth money. I don't care
> if a person is a doctor, a lawyer, a plumber, a nurse, or a car technician.

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?


> If shops are now charging time for attempting to diagnose a problem without
> solving the problem, they are merely taking a cue from the so-called white
> collar professions that have been doing this for years.
>
> No white collar professional has grounds to complain.

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 ****ing 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
--
"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick

"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
snip
> 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).

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.

> 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.

Yup, this is the bottom line.

> Finally, your penultimate sentence indicates that as long as some
> individuals or companies are ****ing people over, it must be OK for
> anyone to do it.

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.

In article <elmop-DAC296.07402715082004@text.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <wCBTc.34465$wM.11543@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for
> > service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot.
>
> If people pay for it, it's right.
>
> People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right,
> not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be
> allowed to charge that for a cup of coffee?
>
> If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it.

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.