Is licensing of technicians a benefit or a detriment to the industry? I have heard strong opinions from a number of sources, including technicians, shop owners, the insurance industry, the government and lastly the consumer or end user. What I intend to do these next few weeks is to discuss the issue through the eyes of each group. I will give my opinions based on what I see as a member of three out of the five interest groups named above. I am a technician, owner and consumer. Some readers may disagree with my conclusions so I welcome them to share their own opinions.
Let’s start with the technicians. What are the pros and cons of licensing for the technician?
—There may be more training or apprenticeship required;
—There will be fewer technicians, so salaries will rise with demand;
—There will probably be an annual re-licensing fee involved;
—It should raise the auto glass technician in the eyes of the consumer to a higher level of professionalism;
—It may require the need for each tech to purchase liability insurance for protection.
State governments that mandate professional licensing usually require some proof of competence. This proof usually consists of an amount of dictated training and then testing to assure the public of minimum competence. How that training is developed, sanctioned, administrated, delivered and paid for is the big question.
Obviously, training is not free. It will take money and effort to comply with state licensing regulations no matter how user-friendly the programs are. However, compliance may pay for itself by reduced competition and higher product and service prices.
I think it goes without saying that a licensing program will reduce the number of auto glass installers in the states that adopt the program. Of course, the actual number will be dependent on the type of program and how it is administered. The easier it is to obtain a license, than the fewer the installers who are lost.
Conversely, the more demands put upon the licensees and the more expenses there are, the fewer qualified techs there will be for hire. Having fewer licensed techs available means higher salaries for those that go through the process. Though this may look like a big benefit for the technicians, it may be a wash because of training costs and annual licensing fees.
Licensing means annual costs. Each year there will be either added training requirements or licensing fees or both. Some of these costs will be minimal, but depending on a program’s training requirements, the money spent can be higher.
Anyone who has spent any time in our industry knows we are sometimes thought of as unskilled service providers that rank near predatory mechanics, roofers or used-car salesmen. We know differently, but the recent press we have received from the media and the insurance fraud cases that have been made public, do not bode well for our industry and our reputation. Licensing would raise our status to the consumer. Think about how it would look to our customers to have a government issued license to prove our worth. Wouldn’t that be easier to sell? Wouldn’t there be a certain sense of pride?
Licensing does somewhat individualize the process of installation. The technician is a state licensed individual that installs glass for the driving public. The technician replaces a safety device that protects the occupants of the vehicle. The technician works for a company but the company is not licensed the tech is, so there is some level of liability that will fall onto the shoulder of the tech. That individualization comes with a certain amount of responsibility that might require some protection for the technician. Does that mean another expense is required for the technician in the form of a liability insurance policy? Possibly, that would be a question that would have to be asked of an attorney or the legislator writing the bill. How much liability would be placed at the feet of the technician? That is the question that must be answered.
Next week I’ll put on my owner’s hat and see where this subject leads. I would love to read your comments to get a feel for how this subject is playing in the real world.
On the surface licensing appears to be a harmless idea, perhaps even a good idea. But if the history of the past two decades of the Auto Glass Replacement industry is any indicator of how it will play out it is a terrible idea. Many of us including myself have spent countless hours of our time and untold amount of money traveling to various committees for the better part of 10 years to help elevate and improve our trade in the eyes of both Insurance and the consumer, only to watch the entire repair and replacement industry consumed and now monopolized. While we heap more stringent requirements upon ourselves hoping ALL would have to comply, with one simple statement such as ‘our standards far exceed AGRSS’, their Insurance partners say “oh OK. All the effort vanished in a single swope. So now you must comply, will it be any different if we self-impose licensing on ourselves? Let’s entrust our business to the State to help level and regulate fairness, how’s that worked so far?
A license is a bad idea, only you will have to comply. Think too about the turnover rate for Technician’s, do you want to pop for $500 dollars every time someone quits or is fired? What about new hires can they even work on a car if they don’t have a license? The only two entities benefit from this one the State and two , well you should know by now.
Hello – Always enjoy your posts and look forward to reading this series!
I would like to see licensing and it is in the works in the Province of Ontario, legislation is pending…Everyday I see butchered work by fly by night guys who don’t speak any English and run out of their beat up old cars, yet, dealerships still use them because of PRICE, not quality or what if a crash happened. The other day a brand new 2013 300 had to have the rear window taken out so I could fix a leak, the guy showed up with NO CUT OUT knife and proceeded to use an exacto knife and scratched the crap out of the paint on a brand new car!
Some of you, readers, will be stoned to find out that my American Certification as NGA Technician mean absolutely nothing for the Romanian DOT executives, as they demand every year a renewal of the national certification, sealed by clerk that have never seen any replacement or repair job. Lucky me, as I have a new business in Berlin, Germany and a valid Visa for the States. Make my day, folks !
I am also an installer and a business owner. Third generation glass technician with twenty plus years in the industry. I believe the industry as a whole has many issues. I believe that there should should be a requirement for all Glass Technicians across the board to go through an annual certification and or re certification. Just go by your local glass supplier occasionally and watch the glass installers that go in and out on a daily basis. I put just as much blame on the employer as the employee though. Most don’t seem to have a dress code, no sense of pride in their trade, and not much in the way of proper technical training. I personally do all of my own ” in house training.” I train someone for a minimum of a year before they are released to install glass on their own. There has to be a sense of pride brought back to this industry and definitely more accountability as well as liability for all Auto Glass Technicians.