>> Basically the auto repair trade magazine said that the
>> mechanic should have futzed around under the hood
>>  for another 20 minutes after actually finding the problem
>> (presumably on the customer's dime, and time) just to
>> make it look more impressive and to allow the mechanic
>> to fully bill for the value of his expertise.

> This is a tough dilemma.  On one side, some will say that the 
> mechanic should be paid for how much time he put into the 
> repair, others will say that a good mechanic should get paid 
> for the job and not just for the amount of time spent on the job.

Some mechanics quote a flat rate or a book rate per job; others charge
actual time and materials. Either method is perfectly reasonable as long as
it's disclosed up front. Very frequently a more experienced mechanic will
charge more per hour than a less experienced one, but still cost the
customer less, because due to his expertise he can do the job faster (and do
it right the first time!).  

But actually finishing the job and then PRETENDING to work under the hood
for a while longer, just to make it look more difficult than it was, is
intentionally deceptive. This is simply playing tricks on the customer, and
wasting his time and probably his money. If the mechanic wants a minumum 1
hour diagnostic charge, that's perfectly reasonable, and many garages do
that. Just tell the customer that - don't play charades. I think it's
ridiculous that a major auto repair trade magazine would actually advocate
this sort of thing.

- Ron Salmon
  The Bus Depot, Inc.
  www.busdepot.com
  (215)  234-VWVW

_____________________________________________
Toll-Free for Orders by PART # :  1-866-BUS-DEPOT