| The commentary box |
March 2007 |
|||
 Welcome to the latest edition of Commentary Box.FAME at last! Suddenly, and two months into the year, and I receive a personal e-mail from the Prime Minister. Well, I like to think it's personal, but to do this I must blissfully ignore the other 1.8 million people who received the same message. Yes, I freely admit to being one of the signatories to the anti road pricing petition displayed on the Downing Street website. As readers of this column know, I am strongly opposed to any form of further taxation, when it comes to using the car. Doubtless my official entry into Government record's, as a troublemaker, will make sure my card in marked. Come the revolution, he'll be among the first to go! Never the less I feel that road pricing is just taking the "Dick Turpin" approach; an approach based upon the simple maxim that "if they are out there make them pay". Sadly this is just another example of this tired and weak kneed Government trying to collect revenue from a problem they have successfully created. (If only they could be half as successful in solving problems!) Returning to the e-mail, while Mr Blair had the decency to admit the size of the vote, with his typical arrogance he confirmed his intention to press on with trials. What's 1.8 million opinions to a man who recognises non but his own? Just as a once fabled King tried to defy the incoming tide, Mr Blair sees fit to ignore popular feelings. Now, and firmly on the rebound, the Government is coming up with a revised version for road pricing. Perhaps, and ever hopeful, they feel that where the Dick Turpin approach failed, another version could be slipped in without anyone noticing. FURTHER fame came my way in February when I was contacted by Richard Barnett of Motor Trader, and asked to contribute to his article on bodyshop training. For those of you who did not see his excellent article, do get a back issue as a number of "leading lights" made some very pertinent points. On a personal note, Richard was good enough to print my views regarding Insurance Companies making a valid contribution to apprentice training in bodyshops. If work providers want, and I assume they do, a stable and long lasting repairer network then they must be willing to put something back into it. For example, £50 to £100 a week to fund apprentice training, in their approved repairer networks, is a "drop in the ocean," when compared to the money being spent advertising discounted insurance premiums. "Come on, you big guys, it's time to get in there and make sure that the people who are doing their best for you, will still be around in years to come. Just as every successful football team runs a youth team, failure to invest now is like running your car on empty and then being surprised when it stops!" THE RIGHT RATE: Lat week I found myself talking to a bodyshop owner who remained positive, busy and profitable. In very simple terms he admitted to having no insurance approvals, but doing work for most insurers. But, here comes the key, "I do the work at my rate and if they do not like it we agree to differ. We don't fall out, but as I only have so many hours a week to sell I have an obligation to myself, and to my staff, to make sure that those hours are sold to the best payer". How refreshing and what a lot of sense it makes? How many times has this column advocated that bodyshops draw up their own terms of business, terms that state an effective hourly rate that is fair to both parties. Such terms should not be thrown at existing work providers, on a take it or leave it basis, but presented to any new work providers making an approach. As they will present you with their terms, be prepared to stand behind yours? (Don't forget to include the apprentice training contribution.) KITEMARK: Once again I am indebted to Bodyshop Magazine for some further, and informative, updating on the PAS 125 position. Interestingly enough point 5, in their quick sketch "125 in a nutshell," explains that the programme will give work providers a fast and direct route into bodyshops capable of carrying out the repairs. That's great, but with their approved repairer networks already in place, surely such a route exists? However, are we now saying that changing technology must be kept pace with, so calling for new standards of repair? Okay, I can accept this and this column is unequivocal in it's support for professional standards, and is prepared to stand four square behind anything that works, but it must be of benefit to the bodyshops. Therefore, and if this is to be the case, I'd like to see all work providers unilaterally endorse the new standards and confirm that they will only send work to bodyshops who have the invested in securing the Kitemark. But, for every stick there must be a carrot because, if work providers have been sending repair work to bodyshops in the past it is only right, that by working to higher standards, the same bodyshop should be rewarded with better rates. If a three star hotel upgraded to a five star, the room rates would rise accordingly and, likewise, if a loyal employee was told that he had to study, in his own time and at his own expense, to obtain a university degree in order to keep his job, he'd be entitled to more money? So, like all of you, I await further developments in this area.
|
||||