Technician licensing ,quality repairs and pay
- This topic has 2 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by .
- Posts
This thread probably would be better if it were three seperate threads, but I feel all three a linked strongly. Please, give each of these items some thought before posting.Also do not let me scare you off with some of my rebutals as I pay devils advocate. Please respond.
First, what are your thoughts about technician licensing? Is it a good or bad idea and how do you feel it would hurt or improve things in our industry.(both painters and body techs)
Second, what defines a quality repair? Just about every technician I talk with thinks his repairs are ok, but you need to look out for the other guy (both painters and body techs).
Third, why should technicians be paid at the top of the scale? What steps should one have to take to qualify as a journeyman technician who is proficeint at this trade (both painter and body techs).
Great post brad!
Mandatory body licensing I think would be a good thing for the industry (I thought their was some sort of law requiring at least one current body tech, am I mistaken?).I don’t like the though of an unlicensed tech repairing the vehicles structure. I think if all the unlicensed techs were eliminated it would bring the wages up for the licensed guys.
For the painters licensing I’m a little bit on the fence, I do like the idea, again it may bring wages up for painters getting licensed but I don’t know if its necessary. I like the idea the OEM’s have with specifying only a trained painter is allowed to carry out warranty jobs, but it doesn’t seemed to be enforced….which might be the same problem if something like this was to happen.
Onto quality, I hear it all the time & say it all the time!lol, its the other guy….he’s the butcher, I swear!
My definition of a quality paint job is simply put as holdout, It lasts for the duration its been designed. Doesn’t sink,peel,stonechip,corrode…To me it doesn’t matter how good it looks leaving, My concern is what is looks like 5-10 years down the road, It will probably be the deciding factor on your customer returning.I don’t fit a few dirt nibs into quality, however they should still be taken care of.Body quality would pretty well boil down to as close to factory specifications as humanly possible. I’m not gonna rant about this part, so I’ll just leave it here, Quality to me equals factory measurements & modern repair techniques.
You’ll have to let me ponder that third one a while longer.
Jimmo,
Thanks for responding! I have had a lot of shop owners and techs talk to me about mandatory licensing of shops and techs over the past year. Most seem to think it would weed out the “fly by night” people in our business.
Unfortunately, that is what the DRP programs were suppose to do. In order to get on most of them, you were required to produce proof of business licensing, training, liability insurance, and proper equipment to do a quality repair. Instead it turned into a bargaining chip for those issuing the contracts, namely the insurance companies. If you don’t play by their rules, most contracts are terminated abruptly. Doing a good repair has little to do with it. It has to be a good repair with a very low price tag. Good for them, not so good for the bodyshop.
Government issued licensing would do the same thing: restrain trade by eliminating some of the competition. The problem with this thinking is it does not stop. Groups of the licensee’s can ban together and make requirements for licensing tougher to maintain or obtain and eliminate more of the competition. Doctors, lawyers and others do this by making certification tougher with their exams. The California and New York bar exams are nearly impossible to pass on the first attempt. This makes their services very expensive. Good for them, not so good for the customer.
It is generally true that those who serve the public the best, gain a deserved reputation for doing so. Nevertheless there are those who feel that licensing laws serve a valuable purpose in compelling those who hold licenses to attain some minimum level of education, experience and competence. Thus in the absence of a reputation, the public can use this fact to help them choose someone who is qualified. So licensing laws serve a valuable purpose, right?
It is assumed that in the absence of licensing laws, those who consider themselves professionals in any given field, would band together in a professional association, establish minimum standards for membership and proceed to advertise their superiority. Thus the public would still be provided with information regarding who the professionals consider professional. And certainly it is our right to do that very thing. Further more anyone who falsely claimed membership in such a group, could be prosecuted for false advertising. No harm would result from such associations and doubtless much good would be accomplished by them, right?
If those who consider themselves better qualified want to prove their excellence, they can then do so in the open market. But why should they be allowed to establish government enforced monopolies which compel customers to patronize them or go without? (Same thing applies to DRP programs) If they feel that buyers might not be able to distinguish between them and those less skilled, they can still set their own rules for membership in their organization and deny admittance to any they feel are unqualified.
But at the same time why should the public be denied their freedom to reject their claims of superiority? Or why should not the public be permitted to purchase products and services of an inferior quality and doubtless at a cheaper price if they desire? In other words, why should we continue to allow licensing laws to deny people their freedom of contract?
Herein lies the problems with our current system. DRP’s need to go if they are going to restrain trade. Licensing needs to go if it is going to restrain trade. And associations also if they start advocating licensing or any other restrictive trade maneuver. Customers need to have freedom of choice. Enough said.
Gentlemen as always: Opinions Please!
Brad Larsen
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.