I started out my automotive software career with Ford, and as part of the new college hire training program, I actually got to see the process of how "book rate" is determined. They take a brand new car, straight off the assembly line and give a master mechanic a process sheet (head gasket remove and replace, for instance). He has a tool cart with a computer next to it, about 6 feet away from the vehicle. For each step he starts a timer on the computer for that step, picks up the necessary ratchet and socket or whatever, loosens the next bolt, walks the ratchet and socket back to the tool box, puts it away and then finally stops the timer. He probably practices the procedure a few times before the timed run, but basically this prevents the company from setting the time to do a job super crazy low.
He's also not allowed to take any shortcuts from the book procedure, which there frequently are a few available (use a long wobble extension bar and a universal joint and you can get in without taking off all of the stuff above that bolt, whatever). On the other hand, this is the warranty rate (meaning new cars, largely less rust, etc). Independent/non-dealer mechanics will typically charge more time than the warranty time estimate from the manufacturer to account for things like rusty vehicles with harder to remove bolts and such, though this is usually in the rate book they subscribe to from whatever information source they pay for (warranty + 20% or so).
The issue is that the estimated time for a job is probably a high estimate for a brand new car and probably a low estimate for a several year old car, and the risk of that is on the dealership. The dealership then pays mechanics an hourly wage ($20+, fairly high for well certified master mechanics) and assumes that the hours listed on the job from the manufacturer are accurate, leaving the mechanic to take the risk if it goes over. Generally, the dealership loses on this proposition too, since they lose out on business/bay/electric/heat/etc for the lost time, so they don't like warranty work. They can upcharge/charge for more time/etc on a job for a customer, not for warranty repair due to contractual obligations to the OEM. This is particularly bad for Ford, since they currently lead the industry in recalls and warranty spend, meaning that their dealership networks are getting a lot more of that kind of work with limited profit and no ability to turn it down.
Wife's cousin is a GM mechanic, and similar to this, he explained how they game recalls/TSBs. When you have a recall/TSB, it's the same process where the manufacturer comes up with the amount that the dealer is paid to resolve. However, if the mechanics individually don't submit common problems, then it doesn't rise to the level of a recall/TSB and the dealership can bill T&M.
The specific example was a leak that was the shorting out of electric window motors due to rainwater leaking through the window. It was better for him to fix it by cutting up a plastic container and attaching it over the motor & getting hourly for it than it was for GM to tell the dealership "Here's the part, you get $8 to install it when the customer is subject to the TSB"
>This is particularly bad for Ford, since they currently lead the industry in recalls and warranty spend
Can confirm this. Just Traded in my Escape for a Toyota. I was tired of spending time and money on repairs on a mid range car with less than 65k miles.
I thought the same about Toyota being better quality, but I took delivery of a 2024 Sienna and it has had several visits to the dealership for warranty items. Not mechanical, but I still find them disconcerting since they could indicate a lack of QC. I'm sure you're aware of the major turbo QC problems Toyota has with the 3.4L twin turbo in the Tundra and Sequoia models. I think all automotive mfgrs are racing to the bottom when it comes to quality hoping that the world moves en masse to an AaaS model and stops holding on to them.
I'm still quite happy with my 2007 Sienna. Just clocked over 256k miles - 80k of which we have put on it. I replaced the alternator and starter, otherwise it's been a champ! Then again, I have zero context for the warranty items that were dealt with before we took ownership.
Maybe this is just survivorship bias of the used car market. When you see a vehicle with 180k miles that still runs great and looks to have been well taken care of, you're not seeing the dozens of others that were completely abused or neglected or let warranty items slip. There is a certain amount of filtering that has already gone on for a vehicle with that many miles on it that helps you avoid the real lemons or models with serious design flaws.
I sort of took the opposite route of most people. I got access to software developer money fairly early so was buying new (but practical) vehicles. I wasted so much money on new cars and still had to deal with warranty stuff and minor inconveniences and a shitty owner who doesn't take care of their vehicles. As I got older I've started buying the cheapest functional vehicle I could find that still had good maintenance history and zero accidents. I have had excellent results now that I'm doing the basics of care and maintenance. Part of me still wants the new toys. I'd love to have HUD speed limit and current speed projected for example. Vented and cooled seats would be amazing! I think the Ionic 5 N is the most tempted I've been by a new vehicle in a long time. But I haven't had a car note in over a decade and my insurance is dirt cheap on these very reliable but older vehicles.
A friend with 4 children and not much money would search out used vehicles with 300,000kms with the reasoning that if the vehicle made it that far and was in an reasonable condition then he wouldn’t have to invest much into it. Plus they were very cheap since no one wanted them. Pre-COVID of course.
Our 2008 Sienna finally died at just over 300k miles. Well, it still ran on a couple cylinders, so it got everyone home, but didn't have much power anymore.
> I'm sure you're aware of the major turbo QC problems Toyota has with the 3.4L twin turbo in the Tundra and Sequoia models.
That's why I got a Tacoma with a plain V6 and no turbo's to worry about :)
Well then you can just worry about the transmission.
have driven toyota all my life. Once it went from 90's camry to 2000's prius, there was essentially zero real maintenance require.
> The dealership then pays mechanics an hourly wage ($20+, fairly high for well certified master mechanics) and assumes that the hours listed on the job from the manufacturer are accurate, leaving the mechanic to take the risk if it goes over.
What's the mechanic's risk? Are they only paid on the pre-estimated labor time?
It's not an hourly rate as in if you work 5 hours you are paid for 5 hours of labor. You are paid $20+ an hour based on the expected time to complete the job, with a price floor of minimum wage. If a job should take 3 hours and you take one, congrats, you made money. If the job should take 3 hours and it takes a full day, sucks to be you, you get paid for 3 hours. If the job should take 3 hours and you wait 2 hours for a part, you get paid 3 horus.
It's almost like a hairdresser as well, as they usually need to buy many of their own tools.
Well, if mechanic is present on the workplace all day, they must get paid at least a minimum wage per day, regardless of any estimates or even if there's any work at all.
It's employer's problem, employer never wants to pay workers less than minumum wage per hour, and loading them with work is manager's job.
But I doubt mechanics want minumum wage, especially since it's not keeping up with inflation.
Just make sure you understand that minimum wage is only for W2s. Shops likely dont only us employee labor and likely treat their mechanics and contractors often enough.
Then autoshops are exposed to the risk that mechanics report/sue them for "employee misclassification" and unpaid wages. Employers are better always pay at least minimum wage, even for 1099s, otherwise more incentive for workers to report them.
Of course many are ok being exposed to that risk, depends on the jobs. Also there's tips that help employers avoiding the unpaid wages. However, worker must report the tips received, and if they received less tips to cover the minimum wage, then employer must pay employee the difference (so the total pay would be at least min wage).
I saw that restaurant owners pay at least min wage even to illegal workers who don't even have SSNs. I assumed that unpaid wages is more serious than hiring illegally.
> Then autoshops are exposed to the risk that mechanics report/sue them for "employee misclassification" and unpaid wages.
I don't think that is a very high risk for the "employer". There's a reason that things like this go on for so long: https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro...
Those billions are just the reported amounts.
Yes, but if you are one of Uber/Lyft drivers you're less likely to receive anything from reporting them than if you're one of only 5 mechanics in an auto shop. Auto shop owner does not have an army of lawyers to drag the case.
>Are they only paid on the pre-estimated labor time?
That's more or less it.
Maybe they should unionize.
Mechanics don't have to work for the dealership. If the dealership isn't paying them well, they can go work for an independent shop, which is exactly what's happening.
Getting paid the book rate is an advantage to the mechanic because then they still get the full rate if they're more efficient at their job, which is an advantage to everybody. As long as the book rate is reasonable. And if it isn't then they don't take the job, which isn't a problem for the mechanics, it's a problem for Ford.
Yep I know a few mechanics and all of them who worked at dealerships have gone independent. Either started their own shop, or are working for a non-dealer shop.
A mechanic getting $20/hr is crazy. Shops charge the customer $100+ per hour for labor. Of course they have overhead, but many people don't realize that mechanics buy their own tools.
You can earn $20 flipping burgers.
This, plus they get used to the non-warranty rate, so when they have to warranty work at the lower rate, they feel cheated.
For years, it was difficult to hire licensed mechanics at Hyundai dealerships due to the massive recall of the 2.4L engine. Since Hyundai had to eat the losses of offering a lifetime warranty to owners of that engine, recalls and product improvements, mechanics bore some of that financial burden when Hyundai provided a low labor rate to them. They would spend days swapping an engine and watch a lube lane mechanic out earn them.
I despise the idea of leasing, but in a world where nothing is built to last any more, there may not be much of a choice for people just trying to get from point A to point B.
> The dealership then pays mechanics an hourly wage ($20+, fairly high for well certified master mechanics)
Maybe in Ohio.
I'm not sure that your comment is even directionally correct. TFA is clickbait for blue collar pseudo-car-guys. The example given in the article paints the mechanic as the hero, losing money on every job. In reality book time is insanely exaggerated in the median, and the problem is likely more that mechanics don't like earning a dime for every dollar the boss makes.
Many mechanics (seems that is what the article example is) get paid on book time, not hourly. That is what the guy in the article is complaining about. That their book rate is both too aggressive, and far less than the "customer book time" / rate. The reason mechanics are often paid this way is so that they stay efficient. Warranty jobs are especially aggressive on the mechanic book rate, because cars under warranty are newer with few unexpected problems like rusty parts, stripped bolts, age related issues, etc.
I'm not a professional and I routinely match book times for most jobs working with no particular urgency on rusty garbage.
$20 is starting as I understand, and goes up quite high for master mechanics with certifications. That's how I meant that to be read.
keep in mind a good mechanic is making double time or better.. although I understand that's harder on a FORD than a Japanese car.
$20 is also on the low end for a good tech, you're correct.
That seems absurdly low, I would expect a skilled mechanic to make at least $50 an hour.
$20/hour is starting pay around here at McDonalds, In-N-Out Burger, etc.
Thus the starting out part. Certifications, years of experience, skills in terms of welding exhaust or the like all raise that, but mechanics get screwed on their rate regularly, which is why they're dropping out. See one of the other top level comments about "shortage -> low wages."
A decent mechanic who works 40hr is getting paid more than 40hr.
He's also buying his own tools, breaking his back and knuckles, and exposed to carcinogens (used motor oil, grease, etc).
>He's also buying his own tools
cheaper than a degree
>breaking his back and knuckles, and exposed to carcinogens (used motor oil, grease, etc).
They work indoors and don't exactly work in an environment where things get burnt or aerosolized. It's no office job but it's not exactly ditch digging.
The Ford dealership I worked as a technician at had a covered roof, but just past the lift it was uncovered. It was basically outdoors - no AC and the wind would blow rain on you.
If we're playing the stupid "suffering is virtue" game you're still losing to pretty much anyone who brings their tools to the machine.
You're playing that stupid game by yourself. I was explaining the justification behind a decent mechanic who works 40hr on the clock is getting paid more than 40hr on the book.
This seems like a pretty fair system, they do get to do it on unrealistic practically new vehicles, but they also can’t take any practical shortcuts whatsoever.
Is there any proposal for some alternate way determining it?
The impression I got from seeing the demonstration was that this was the result of years of negotiating and arguing to get to something fair. Ford doesn't love it, dealers don't love it, but no one can really come up with a major improvement.
Calvin and Hobbes: "A good compromise leaves everybody mad."
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9cGKql0Wk1A/TrAJTrDoxxI/AAAAAAAAA...
I say something like this to my kids when I'm tired of mediating and I want them to solve their own disagreements. "My definition of success is that you are both crying after I've made my decision."
(for the record, I did not have this policy when they were toddlers, only as tweens; I'm not a monster)
Such policies encourage bad behaviour - being reasonable makes it guaranteed you loose against unreasonable.
If the article is to be believed Ford has changed how book time is calculated considering they're paying 36 minutes for a job that requires removing the cab.
The fact that you need to take the cab off to do an oil pan gasket should set off some alarm bells for how maintainable these vehicles are.
> If the article is to be believed
I don't. Someone is lying.
I'm also skeptical. I suspect that book time for this varies wildly depending on drivetrain config.
HYou think it might be the CEO? No, couldn't be, surely someone paid 100s of times their employees would be honest about something he has no real experience doing.
I think it is either the journalist, or the guy she interviewed.
I know how Ford sets book time. Their methodology, while perhaps biased towards optimistic estimates, is not ever going to put cab R&R at under an hour.
Charitably, someone is mistaken. But given that these numbers are core to the argument being made, I find it odd that the claims were not vetted at all. It takes almost no effort to find example R&R times for various Ford pickups, and they're all measured in hours. It's not hard, typically 6-10 bolts depending on the model. But even with bulk electrical connectors, no rust, the right tools, and experience, the process takes more than an hour.
Smells like CEO in here.
A fair system? This is nothing more than theater, necessary to get cheap labor. What about giving mechanics an hourly rate, just like the rest of the world?
A person achieved that time to do the work. What is theatre about that?
An hourly rate punishes mechanics who work fast, don't you think?
The book time provides consistency within and across dealerships. Would you accept paying twice as much for a repair if they assigned a new mechanic to your job?
The one thing I've heard consistently from people in that business is "You won't last long if you can't beat the book," something experienced mechanics do on a regular basis.