In August, 2008, I had to get a $350 repair done to my truck. In November, the repair was done again. Then in February, again re-done.
This week I returned to the shop to be told the problem in August was mis-diagnosed. Another repair is in order. This one will cost me $800. The first repair was not necessary and I asked for a credit but was turned down.
How was that $800 determined? No, not by an estimating system.
It was determined by inputting all the information about me and my vehicle into an on-line service provider who combines that information with a database about my vehicle and the repair history for like vehicles to determine how much the shop can expect to charge me before I say no and take my car elsewhere. The system tells the shop manager how much he needs to charge to break even on the repair, and how much he can gross up the cost and still get me to say yes.
In a way it is a real time, bid and supply system. It is a good tool.
My concern though is that the service provider and the shop do not disclose to the customer that this is how the estimate is arrived at. I was able to figure out that something was odd when the estimate for how many hours it would take to fix my truck changed, when my status went from being employed to being self employed (it dropped $100). I wondered how my employment status impacted on the estimate. The manager at one shop disclosed how the system works, but the manager at another place was evasive.
Ever wonder why dealers charge so much more than independent places? Its because the dealer has so much more information about the vehicle owner that they can push up rates. That is why the guy at the computer needs so much information about you and the car when you drive in, even if all you are doing is replacing a headlight bulb. It is true that information has value!
The way that car repair estimates are arrived at should be disclosed.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Car Repairs
I own one of the socially-hated SUVs.
Mine is nothing fancy. In fact, its a first generation SUV and built on a truck platform.
I have had no problems with the SUV until I reached 100,000km. The problem is minor, but getting it fixed properly at the shop is an ongoing travesty.
The transmission had a fluid leak. Not a big deal. All that was required as a new seal. The shop replaced the seal in August, 2008. But in November, the leak returned. So I took it back and this time the shop sealed the leak with silicone. Seems the replacement seal was inserted so tightly it cracked. Problem with silicone is that it is oil based and will eventually erode from the transmission fluid, which it did. So back to the shop for a 3rd time in late January.
On the third visit, I was informed that a new seal was ordered and the old one replaced. But, I had to leave the truck there from Saturday to Thursday in order to wait for the part to arrive.
I would say I had been VERY patient, waiting almost a week for the 3rd time fix.
Guess what^ Six weeks later, the leak is back. No new seal was installed. More silicone was added, in the hope that I will give up on this shop and they will not have to make good on their warranty.
Seems like I will have to call in my counterpart from the Intelligence, Operations and Enforcement division here at U.N.C.L.E.
I own one of the socially-hated SUVs.
Mine is nothing fancy. In fact, its a first generation SUV and built on a truck platform.
I have had no problems with the SUV until I reached 100,000km. The problem is minor, but getting it fixed properly at the shop is an ongoing travesty.
The transmission had a fluid leak. Not a big deal. All that was required as a new seal. The shop replaced the seal in August, 2008. But in November, the leak returned. So I took it back and this time the shop sealed the leak with silicone. Seems the replacement seal was inserted so tightly it cracked. Problem with silicone is that it is oil based and will eventually erode from the transmission fluid, which it did. So back to the shop for a 3rd time in late January.
On the third visit, I was informed that a new seal was ordered and the old one replaced. But, I had to leave the truck there from Saturday to Thursday in order to wait for the part to arrive.
I would say I had been VERY patient, waiting almost a week for the 3rd time fix.
Guess what^ Six weeks later, the leak is back. No new seal was installed. More silicone was added, in the hope that I will give up on this shop and they will not have to make good on their warranty.
Seems like I will have to call in my counterpart from the Intelligence, Operations and Enforcement division here at U.N.C.L.E.
Friday, March 6, 2009
GM, The CAW and Pensions
Both GM Canada and the CAW are of the mind that if GM goes bankrupt, then "the government" will have to bail the employees out of an unfunded pension plan.
In Canada, a pension plan can be registered either federally or provincially. Fortunately for those of us Canadians outside of Ontario, GM registered its pension plan in Ontario.
Unfortunately for Ontario taxpayers, the provincial government is actually entertaining funding of the GM pension plan in the event GM goes bankrupt.
There actually is a fund in Ontario to cover exactly the issue of unfunded pension plans. The problem is that GM and the union, asked for, and were given, a permanent holiday from ever contributing to the fund because "GM was to big to ever go bankrupt."
GM and its unions now want access to the fund. Some of the contributors to this fund have said "hands off", using fairly strong words. One contributor made it clear his organization would consider an attempt by GM to access the fund "extortion" and they would look to criminally prosecute GM and the CAW.
While we agree, in principle, with that link between GM, the CAW and the legal concept of extortion, U.N.C.L.E is officially issuing the following statement, which we believe focuses on the business issue and establishes clear assignment of accountability:
"The issue of the GM pension plan is a private, commercial agreement between GM management, its employees and the CAW. The taxpayers of Ontario were not at the table for any wage, benefit and pension negotiations between the employer and the employee. The terms of the agreement are not in the public domain, nor were they subject to democratic, public governance and oversight. The taxpayer cannot be bound to the agreement morally nor legally. The taxpayers of Ontario neither have a claim to any benefits from the pension plan, nor do they have liability for any unfunded portion of the plan."
March 6, 2009
Hazen S. Colbert
Vice Chair
Policy, Intelligence & Communications
U.N.C.L.E.
In Canada, a pension plan can be registered either federally or provincially. Fortunately for those of us Canadians outside of Ontario, GM registered its pension plan in Ontario.
Unfortunately for Ontario taxpayers, the provincial government is actually entertaining funding of the GM pension plan in the event GM goes bankrupt.
There actually is a fund in Ontario to cover exactly the issue of unfunded pension plans. The problem is that GM and the union, asked for, and were given, a permanent holiday from ever contributing to the fund because "GM was to big to ever go bankrupt."
GM and its unions now want access to the fund. Some of the contributors to this fund have said "hands off", using fairly strong words. One contributor made it clear his organization would consider an attempt by GM to access the fund "extortion" and they would look to criminally prosecute GM and the CAW.
While we agree, in principle, with that link between GM, the CAW and the legal concept of extortion, U.N.C.L.E is officially issuing the following statement, which we believe focuses on the business issue and establishes clear assignment of accountability:
"The issue of the GM pension plan is a private, commercial agreement between GM management, its employees and the CAW. The taxpayers of Ontario were not at the table for any wage, benefit and pension negotiations between the employer and the employee. The terms of the agreement are not in the public domain, nor were they subject to democratic, public governance and oversight. The taxpayer cannot be bound to the agreement morally nor legally. The taxpayers of Ontario neither have a claim to any benefits from the pension plan, nor do they have liability for any unfunded portion of the plan."
March 6, 2009
Hazen S. Colbert
Vice Chair
Policy, Intelligence & Communications
U.N.C.L.E.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
They Just Don't Get It
"We do not see any reason to reduce salaries and benefits"
CAW, March 5, 2009
In response to yesterday's news that Chrysler is cutting 1,200 jobs in Windsor, and to today's news that the bankruptcy of GM is imminent without drastic cost cutting and another $30 billion capital injection from government, the CAW just does not get it.
Frankly, I don't care what the CAW says. It is a dinosaur.
What I cannot figure out is why, in response to the CAW, various levels of government are trying to figure out how to bail out the industry.
Its bizarre really. If I was having trouble making my mortgage payment, and told the bank I had no intention of cutting costs, then they would simply call the mortgage and sell the house. That is what we should do with GM, Chrysler and Ford assets in Canada. Put them into bankruptcy and sell off the assets. There are lots of finished cars sitting on lots across Canada that would likely have buyers available, especially with a 30% discount from list.
CAW, March 5, 2009
In response to yesterday's news that Chrysler is cutting 1,200 jobs in Windsor, and to today's news that the bankruptcy of GM is imminent without drastic cost cutting and another $30 billion capital injection from government, the CAW just does not get it.
Frankly, I don't care what the CAW says. It is a dinosaur.
What I cannot figure out is why, in response to the CAW, various levels of government are trying to figure out how to bail out the industry.
Its bizarre really. If I was having trouble making my mortgage payment, and told the bank I had no intention of cutting costs, then they would simply call the mortgage and sell the house. That is what we should do with GM, Chrysler and Ford assets in Canada. Put them into bankruptcy and sell off the assets. There are lots of finished cars sitting on lots across Canada that would likely have buyers available, especially with a 30% discount from list.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The End of GM Occured a Few Months Ago
http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/514447
If GM's sales units drop by as much in 2o10 over 2009, as they have in 2009 over 2008, GM will sell no cars in Canada within 10 months. That is even a faster collapse than I, as arguably the biggest detractor of this industry in Canada, had predicted.
GM isn't just toast, its crumbs.
One of my friends suggested the government not bother to bail out GM, but just guarantee warranties. Sorry, too late. By the end of the 2010, there will be no GM dealers left to do the warranty work.
This is tragic. But I, along with many others, first predicted this some 25 years ago, and the smug GM stakeholders told us we were "talking through our hats."
Those "hats" are keeping me mighty warm!!
If GM's sales units drop by as much in 2o10 over 2009, as they have in 2009 over 2008, GM will sell no cars in Canada within 10 months. That is even a faster collapse than I, as arguably the biggest detractor of this industry in Canada, had predicted.
GM isn't just toast, its crumbs.
One of my friends suggested the government not bother to bail out GM, but just guarantee warranties. Sorry, too late. By the end of the 2010, there will be no GM dealers left to do the warranty work.
This is tragic. But I, along with many others, first predicted this some 25 years ago, and the smug GM stakeholders told us we were "talking through our hats."
Those "hats" are keeping me mighty warm!!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Stick to the Knitting
In February both CTV and Canwest Global reported massive financial write downs. They joined Rogers Cable as money losers. Rogers shocked the markets by losing over $100 million in just one quarter. CTV expects to lose $100 million this year. Canwest is losing $28 million per quarter.
The CBC is also reporting a deficit for the year at $30 million, but it is a fraction of what the private broadcasters have reported.
Over the past 10 years, CTV, Canwest Global and Rogers have embarked on an ambitious national expansion, buying what they call "properties" for inflated prices, and then trying to integrate these "properties" into unrelated businesses. Instead of sticking to the fundamentals of their TV business, they have been building newspaper businesses, radio station business, Internet, satellite TV and telephone business.
Do all these businesses actually have enough in common to be managed together? Have they converged as the experts suggested they would?
No they haven't. With the single exception that one piece of wire can bring telephone and television and the Internet into the same home, there is no convergence. Radio for instance is a highly fragmented, local business, for which all revenues come solely from local advertising and with the exception of talk stations, all content is imported from other sources. The technology of radio hasn't changed much in 80 years. Newspapers are also local businesses. Network television is national in scope. And mobile telephony is unrelated to local and long distance land-based telephone.
A cell phone that can browse the Internet, send e-mails and take photos is sexy, especially when the bill is being paid by the employer or the bank of mom & dad. However the number of people using devices such as an iPhone and that are paying their own bill are negligible.
The really big stumble is the attempt of regional companies to remake themselves as national organizations by cobbling together vastly different businesses and cultures. The Canwest Global network, for instance, is a bizarre combination of completely unrelated local channels.
So how are these companies proposing to cover their losses. They want the regulator, the CRTC, to require the countries 4 cable operators to charge their clients fees to receive Canadian network television. The problem is that, with the exception of news and sports, nearly 100% of the content carried by CTV and Global are simply simulcasts of US television programming, for which we are already paying the cable company to receive.
Why would I pay an additional $10 per month to watch US shows on Canadian networks?
With respect to the Canadian networks, I watch absolutely nothing on CTV and Global except for US shows which I am also paying to receive on cable.
Please don't get me started on Rogers. I started off as a Rogers cable subscriber in 1985, paying $18 per month for cable TV and pay channels that did not carry commercials. Exactly the same service now costs $55 per month, and the pay channels carry commercials!!
What would I do?
1. Merge Global and CTV and require them to produce local content while divesting themselves of radio and newspaper assets
2. Regulate mobile telephony
3. Treat Rogers cable and other cable companies as utilities, with a business solely devoted on carrying signals, but producing content, not producing services.
By the way, in some places in Canada, nothing needs to be done. Shaw Communications, for instance, is in solid financial shape. Shaw's approach is simple. Its focus is on carrying content, not selling phones, nor producing television content, nor running radio and newspaper. Videotron in Quebec is also in solid financial shape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
