labor charge-by the hour or book???

[TOM KAN PA]

Do shops charge an hourly rate for the time that it takes to do the job, or the
time that "the book" says that it takes?

I took the P T in to have the snow tires taken off. When I picked it up, they
told me I needed lower control arm bushings. He looked in the book and said it
would take 2 1/2 hours per side, a total of five hours labor. So I made an
appointment, dropped the car off Wednesday afternoon. They called at 11:10
Thursday morning and said it was done, they started it first thing in the
morning.
The labor was $288. 5 hours at $57.50 an hour would be $288. But they only had
it for 2 hours and 40 minutes. This would translate to $107.87 per hour.
Should I question this charge??

 

[PC Medic]

Do shops charge an hourly rate for the time that it takes to do the job, or the
time that "the book" says that it takes?

I took the P T in to have the snow tires taken off. When I picked it up, they
told me I needed lower control arm bushings. He looked in the book and said it
would take 2 1/2 hours per side, a total of five hours labor. So I made an
appointment, dropped the car off Wednesday afternoon. They called at 11:10
Thursday morning and said it was done, they started it first thing in the
morning.
The labor was $288. 5 hours at $57.50 an hour would be $288. But they only had
it for 2 hours and 40 minutes. This would translate to $107.87 per hour.
Should I question this charge??

I would certainly question it.
Not sure what state you are in (or if you are even in the states now that I
think of it), but most states require the hourly labor rate to be posted.
If this guy tells you he is worth $107 an hour I would not return.

 

[Geoff]

Do shops charge an hourly rate for the time that it takes to do the job, or the
time that "the book" says that it takes?

The labor was $288. 5 hours at $57.50 an hour would be $288. But they only had
it for 2 hours and 40 minutes. This would translate to $107.87 per hour.
Should I question this charge??

You might gripe a bit. But you must keep in mind that you knew going in
what you agreed to pay, and they charged you just exactly that.

Frankly, mechanics starve if they can't beat the book time on a job. It is
commonplace for a mechanic to book 40 hours of "labor book" time, sometime
on Wednesday or Thursday of a five-day workweek. It is not dishonest, as
long as the mechanic only charges what the customer agreed to pay, in my
opinion.

But like I said, you might gripe a bit. If they're feeling generous,
(likely because you promise to bring them additional work soon--and look
like you intend to keep the promise), they might give you a small break.
But they would be doing you a *favor*, and you should treat it as such. I
would be looking for a discount here in the future, rather than a refund, by
the way.

After all, the most important thing is that they charged you *what you
agreed to pay*. All such dealings are open to negotiation prior to the
commencement of work; you just happened to leave a little more money on the
table than you might have otherwise. Fortunately, it was not an extremely
expensive way to learn this lesson.

And yes, a *good* mechanic, doing solid, high-quality work that he stands
behind, is worth $100 an hour. Try getting a *good* lawyer, plumber or
other professional to work for less. I don't.

--Geoff

 

[Lisa Horton]

Do shops charge an hourly rate for the time that it takes to do the job, or the
time that "the book" says that it takes?

I took the P T in to have the snow tires taken off. When I picked it up, they
told me I needed lower control arm bushings. He looked in the book and said it
would take 2 1/2 hours per side, a total of five hours labor. So I made an
appointment, dropped the car off Wednesday afternoon. They called at 11:10
Thursday morning and said it was done, they started it first thing in the
morning.
The labor was $288. 5 hours at $57.50 an hour would be $288. But they only had
it for 2 hours and 40 minutes. This would translate to $107.87 per hour.
Should I question this charge??

I believe that charging by book hours is standard, at least around
here. I think the book lists the time that it would take a semi trained
chimp to do the job.

Lisa

 

[Joseph Oberlander]

Geoff wrote:

And yes, a *good* mechanic, doing solid, high-quality work that he stands
behind, is worth $100 an hour. Try getting a *good* lawyer, plumber or
other professional to work for less. I don't.

That's why I go to a mechanic who only charges for actual time.
Yes, it's $70 an hour, but he's consistently come in at 3/4 the
cost of the nearest competitor.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

I took the P T in to have the snow tires taken off. When I picked it up,
they told me I needed lower control arm bushings.

Where was it that you took it? Chrysler dealer? Tire store? Other?

How many miles on this car of yours?

I'm a little suspicious of a claim that LCA bushings would be worn out.
Strikes me there aren't many PTs with enough miles on them yet to need LCA
bushings. Wonder if LCA bushings are the "You need a new idler arm" of the
21st century.

DS

 

[Cloaked]

I used to have a mechanic that charged "actual time'.

Over time, as I gave him more and more work, he would charge me
"actual time" up to the listed book time. He NEVER charged me more
than the 'book time".

As I figure it, it was a combination of the fact that I was a good
customer, but also a matter of pride for him. He was an excellent
mechanic, and as you said 99% of the time he beat the book - and the
competition - by a country mile. It was awefully sporting of him to
give me a break since sometimes shit happens and a job is more work
than a person might expect - through no fault of his.

Tought to find these guys, but they are worth their weight in gold
when you do!

 

[Cloaked]

That struck me as odd too! PTs have not not been out that long! I have
heard they are a piece of crap, but this is nuts!

I have NEVER had a car where I have to relace those bushings - not
that it does not happen from time to time.

Then again, until I had an A604 tranmission, I never had a trans that
did not last at least 100,000 MILES (NOT KMS!).

 

[Joseph Oberlander]

I used to have a mechanic that charged "actual time'.

Over time, as I gave him more and more work, he would charge me
"actual time" up to the listed book time. He NEVER charged me more
than the 'book time".

As I figure it, it was a combination of the fact that I was a good
customer, but also a matter of pride for him. He was an excellent
mechanic, and as you said 99% of the time he beat the book - and the
competition - by a country mile. It was awefully sporting of him to
give me a break since sometimes shit happens and a job is more work
than a person might expect - through no fault of his.

Tought to find these guys, but they are worth their weight in gold
when you do!

I guess it's the ethics. Anyone who can lie right to you that
a job will take three hours when they know it will take only
half that time - that's just not right.

If it takes 2 hours or 4, that's what I should pay.

If I hire an electrician, I don't pay for a full day, afterall.
If he's there 2 hours, that's exactly what I get charged. \

 

[Joseph Oberlander]

That struck me as odd too! PTs have not not been out that long! I have
heard they are a piece of crap, but this is nuts!

I have NEVER had a car where I have to relace those bushings - not
that it does not happen from time to time.

Then again, until I had an A604 tranmission, I never had a trans that
did not last at least 100,000 MILES (NOT KMS!).

The newer Ford and Chrysler transmission are junk, thanks to
cost-cutting. Some genius did a "Neon" on them.

When I owned a beater Neon for two months(point A to point B
transportation while my Volvo was in the shop), I ran across a
person who worked for Chrysler as an engineer.

He said that they would come back with a part - say a door
latch - and say "this part is lasting longer than the warranty -
redesign it". I thought he was making it up, but he assurred me
that Chrysler engineers everything on their vehicles - every
single part to last no longer than one std deviation above the
length of their warranties - with a couple of exceptions like
the Wrangler, which takes a lot more abuse.

Ford mandates a 5% cost to them reduction from their suppliers
per year, now, the same as Wal-Mart does with many of its suppliers.

$12K vehicle today. 5 years later, sells for $15K due to inflation.
Figure it has an actual $8K in parts and $4K in labor. This is typical
of most "econoboxes". $10K in parts in 5 years.

8/12 turns into 10/15. So far so good. The rest is labor and such and
profit. 2/3 parts, 1/3 labor and profits. "Parts" includes tooling,
paint, r&d - everything other than labor and profits and advertizing.

5% per year cost reduction: $6200 cost to Ford(down from $8000).
Adjusted for inflation: $7800. Let's call it $8000.

So Ford has effectively kept their cost the same over 5 years, but
is now selling the same car for $15K. They went from $3K to $7K
in non-materials billing. Great for the stock holders, but since
lower quality($1800 in real non-adjusted cost has to come
from somewhere) parts are being produced via outsourcing an
cost-cutting...

Instead of doing R&D, you buy out other firms or portions of
them to gain access. Again, great on paper but screws the
system(witness Chrysler using then dumping Mitsubishi)

Meanwhile, Hyundai sells their $10K vehicle for $12K now.
$6600 in parts before, $8000 in parts after 5 years. Hyundai
is making the same profit margins as before, but are putting
more raw materials and r&d into the car than Ford at this point.


GM? GM thankfully doesn't do this sort of nonsense, but their
vehicles are dreadful to begin with. Sigh. Drive like a...
Well, you go drive an IS300 or an Accord V6 and see if anything
they sell is comparable.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

Chrysler engineers everything on their vehicles - every single part to
last no longer than one std deviation above the length of their
warranties

The 200,000-plus mile lifespan of an AA-body, the durability of the 2.2,
2.5, 3.3 and 3.8 litre engines and other examples contradict this.

GM? GM thankfully doesn't do this sort of nonsense

The utter shittiness of GM vehicles contradicts *this*.

Well, you go drive an IS300 or an Accord V6

....and repair basically nothing until, one day, the entire car starts
breaking and failing.

US or European car: more/smaller repairs over the life of the vehicle,
enabling that life to be extended indefinitely as long as the basic
structure is roadworthy

Japanese car: Fewer/larger repairs over the life of the vehicle until all
the coordinated-lifespan engineering comes due and everything fails,
making it economically unfeasible to keep the car.

DS

 

[Bob Shuman]

I think your friend was either pulling your leg or did not know what he was
talking about....

I can't believe that Chrysler, or for that matter any manufacturer, would
re-design any part to fail sooner. This goes contrary to all logic and my
real world experience. The cost of re-designing anything is never trivial
since the cost goes far beyond the simple engineering labor and obvious
production start-up costs. Simply creating a new part number, getting a
supplier set up and able to produce/deliver, qualifying the part, tracking
its usage, and stocking a new item can easily exceed the re-design labor and
tooling costs. Beyond the obvious, there are also additional costs to
modify all of the associated bills of materials and manufacturing procedures
that used the old part as well as all product documentation that referenced
it.

I do believe the statement that all parts are engineered and that the useful
life expectancy is one of the major factors considered during the design. I
just don't think they would purposely go back to reduce an item's longevity
unless there was a more realistic goal, like possibly reducing an items
cost.

Bob

 

[TOM KAN PA]

<< It is not dishonest, as long as the mechanic only charges what the customer
agreed to pay, in my opinion. >>
____Reply Separator_____
I didn't agree to a dollar amount, I agreed to paying for five hours labor
being done. If it was done in two hours, I should be charged for two hours.

 

[Bill 2]

US or European car: more/smaller repairs over the life of the vehicle,
enabling that life to be extended indefinitely as long as the basic
structure is roadworthy

Wouldn't you say that a European car (eg: VW) will just fall apart to begin
with?

Japanese car: Fewer/larger repairs over the life of the vehicle until all
the coordinated-lifespan engineering comes due and everything fails,
making it economically unfeasible to keep the car.

I know someone with a car like this. Their Camry was working great till 260
000km when it all started falling apart. They had more repairs than our Ford
Taurus of similar vintage. Also remember that of those repairs you do to a
Japanese car, they will cost more because parts cost more.

 

[Bob Shuman]

maybe they had two mechanics working on your vehicle for 2 1/2 hours each...

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

Wouldn't you say that a European car (eg: VW) will just fall apart to begin
with?

Yes, VWs practically come pre-disassembled just like Vegas used to be made
out of compressed rust.

DS

 

[Guest]

I would certainly question it.
Not sure what state you are in (or if you are even in the states now that I
think of it), but most states require the hourly labor rate to be posted.
If this guy tells you he is worth $107 an hour I would not return.

99+% of all shops work on the "book" system - otherwise known as flat
rate. The law in Ontario stipulates the charge rate must be displayed,
and that the charge system must be explained.
Technically, the book lists "labour units" which are nominally an
hour.
A competent mechanic should be able to do the job properly in this
period of time. The good thing about the system is they give you a
"quote" of, say 5 hours at $80.00 per hour (not out of line at a
dealership) - for a total of $400. If the mechanic does it in 3 or 8
hours, you pay $400.
The bad part of the system is "generally" the mechanic does the job in
60% of book time.
The worse part of the system, is mechanics often take short-cuts to
beat the time, as they are "generally" paid by the flat rate as well.

A lot of (usually smaller independent) shops pay the mechanic by the
hour (so he has no incentive to cheat) and quote by the book.
If a 6 hour book job takes 4, they often knock the price back to 5, so
that if the next 6 hour job takes 7 they do not have to charge above
the quote to get by.

The mechanic is also paid to clean up the shop, take out the garbage,
service the hoist etc which is "really" part of the job you are paying
for, whether your car is still in the shop or not.

I'm not defending "flat rate" - just explaining it. When I was service
manager, my men were on straight time, and "the book" was a good
guideline for scheduling, estimating, and quoting. The law does not
say I cannot charge less than my quote, so sometimes, when things went
better than expected, the customer got a pleasant surprise when they
picked up their car.
Had to be carefull though, because Warranty work is ALL bby the book,
and warranty payment was based on "door rate" or "chargeout" -
typically 80% of retail rate, and if you did customers favours, the
factory rep figured you could do it for less for him too ---------.

The week after I left the SM position, the shop converted to straight
flat rate, and lost a fair number of formerly loyal customers.

 

[Joseph Oberlander]

The 200,000-plus mile lifespan of an AA-body, the durability of the 2.2,
2.5, 3.3 and 3.8 litre engines and other examples contradict this.

The engiens are good, but the rest of the cars is pure crap
built to last maybe 100K. Check out the numerous people with
transmissions going out every 30-40K.

The utter shittiness of GM vehicles contradicts *this*.

Lol. No - they just build the same crap they always did.

...and repair basically nothing until, one day, the entire car starts
breaking and failing.

Good. Better than $300 for a module and engine mounts that fail
every 30K miles and plastic radiators and...

Trust me - don't buy a Ford or GM. Chrysler? Maybe 2-3 models
are worth getting.

Japanese car: Fewer/larger repairs over the life of the vehicle until all
the coordinated-lifespan engineering comes due and everything fails,
making it economically unfeasible to keep the car.

Not true. I can't tell you how many old Toyota pickups I see going
and going and going as long as the frame isn't rusted out.

 

[Joseph Oberlander]

I think your friend was either pulling your leg or did not know what he was
talking about....

I can't believe that Chrysler, or for that matter any manufacturer, would
re-design any part to fail sooner.

No - they reduced the quality until it was deemed to be acceptable as
opposed to lasting nearly forever and pocketed the savings a few dollars
at a time.

This goes contrary to all logic and my
real world experience. The cost of re-designing anything is never trivial
since the cost goes far beyond the simple engineering labor and obvious
production start-up costs.

Cost-cutting is all the rage now. A redesign of a non-critical part to
save money may be as simple as going with a less expensive power window
switch. You don't put the 100K cycle model in a car with an expected
10 year lifespan(say a Neon). Figuring a maximum of 5 window openings
a day, that's 3500 a year(10 total per day times 350).

So you put the 30000 MTBF part in. Car works as usual, but doesn't
last like the same as the older versions. 8 switches times 25 cents
a switch savings is $2 per car right there.

The industry is rife with this, unfortunately.

Take the switches on an old Mercedes or Volvo. Tank. Reminiscent of
switches used in professional audio applications. Now, they feel
exactly like the cheap crud Ford makes.

$1 here, $2 there - maybe save $500 per car in costs and if it
looks tacky or lasts only 8-10 years instead of 15? Who cares.

I do believe the statement that all parts are engineered and that the useful
life expectancy is one of the major factors considered during the design. I
just don't think they would purposely go back to reduce an item's longevity
unless there was a more realistic goal, like possibly reducing an items
cost.

Exactly. but it is all about cost. Greedy bastards. You can hardly
buy any vehicle today that is made to last more than a decade without
major problems. $500 more in quality would fix this, but it's not
like they sell a "ruggedized" version of the cars for that extra money,
do they?

 

[Joseph Oberlander]

I'm not defending "flat rate" - just explaining it. When I was service
manager, my men were on straight time, and "the book" was a good
guideline for scheduling, estimating, and quoting. The law does not
say I cannot charge less than my quote, so sometimes, when things went
better than expected, the customer got a pleasant surprise when they
picked up their car.

This put you apart from 90% of the others.

That they lost a lot of customers shows that the idea that you
pay for hours done is a common belief by most people.