The case for and against auto repair shop licensing

April 29, 2015
The worst part is that we are almost certainly doing the right thing by a customer but they are more willing to take the word of an invisible expert on an Internet blog who could very well be a 17 year old kid who has absolutely no training but is qualified as an expert by virtue of owning the particular model of vehicle.

As automotive professionals it never ceases to amaze me how much everyone else second-guesses us. I don’t know about you but in my shop a missed diagnosis is a pretty rare thing. Rare enough that when it does happen there is considerable discussion about the impending end of the world as we know it. The facts are that humans work on cars, humans build cars and things are going to happen even in the very best environments.

But what about the truly bad environments? What is the percentage of missed diagnosis there? Do those shops have insurance? Do they even have a general license in their own city? Herein lies one of the key sources of the second-guessing.

Almost everyone has had a bad experience with a service provider that drove them to become an “expert” in the related field. Often that education comes from other “experts” like friends, family members, Internet bloggers or worse yet a repair shop or dealer who is not intimately familiar with the customer or vehicle.

Does this sound familiar? For those of us who work very hard on our craft these “experts” are a frustrating, counter-productive exercise that causes loss of sales, bad reviews or any number of other unwelcome problems. The worst part is that we are almost certainly doing the right thing by a customer but they are more willing to take the word of an invisible expert on an Internet blog who could very well be a 17 year old kid who has absolutely no training but is qualified as an expert by virtue of owning the particular model of vehicle.

So you know the scenario and I apologize if I dredged up some painful memory for you. The question is what can we do about this?

In many circles I travel through the idea of technician or shop licensing is the silver bullet. Before I start down that path I have to tell you that I have about a 70/30 split in my mind for licensing. Basically that means I am more for it than against it, but there are many considerations. So let’s start with the anti-licensing ideas.

A wise friend of mine once told me that when you go into a government building where laws are made you can parade in on a thoroughbred and walk out with a zebra. No truer words were ever spoken.

We have seen the way bills can start out with a single purpose in mind and wind up barely serving their original purpose. Licensing is certainly going to involve fees because anything worth doing should generate funds to support its newly created or extended bureaucracy (insert sarcasm). There are many who will be concerned about some kind of a fine attached to forgetting that your license has expired or just the invasion of business that might occur. They are well founded as we have seen government programs that are staffed by folks who are not state of the art imposing rules on those who actually are state of the art.

There will have to be testing – more on that later because that really sits in the plus column for me. If this is not a federal program then what happens if a tech moves from state to state and while I am on that, should it be licensing techs, shops or both? Who sets the criteria? How does licensing affect current state regulations?

If you stop to think about it the person who cuts your hair has to be licensed. I am sure that in some way that has something to do with Sweeney Todd because really otherwise how bad can an accident cutting hair be? It grows back for crying out loud! I have concerns about enforcement because have you seen some of the haircuts people get from professionals? All kidding aside there are health concerns related to cutting hair that drive licensing.

The last I checked, working on a 2,500 to 8,000-pound people mover that can travel in more than 70 miles per hour with very little thought or skill required had some more serious health concerns over and above the pilot. From that perspective a world where the folks who work on cars do not have to prove their skills and knowledge really leans towards negligence.  

So what are the upsides? For starters I would love to say to one of those guys who comes in telling me about the pearls of wisdom he received from some alleged expert, “Is your neighbor a licensed technician? No? Then I will be inclined to discount his skill set against my licensed, ASE Certified Master Technician. I hope you understand.”

That may be a little pie in the sky but I think it does underline some opportunities to limit the input from people who are distractions to the process. While I am on ASE there is a real opportunity to partner with them to make a federal program that is consistent state to state. Some might argue that the ASE tests are too generic but unless you have taken a test like the L1 advanced diagnostic test and worked against the “Composite Vehicle” it is hard to see that you are not testing a technician’s knowledge of a particular vehicle. What you are really testing is their ability to work out problems and apply processes, and isn’t this what you want in a guy who repairs the second biggest investment people have?

Would licensing limit the number of candidates coming out of trade schools? Maybe, but it seems likely that our industry might be forced to develop a quality mentorship program to assist technicians in preparing for the automotive equivalent of the bar exam. The more likely result would be more technicians staying in the industry, generating more revenue for their shops and of key importance, providing the legitimacy to a skilled trade in the eyes of parents and school councilors. 

Licensing would also allow cities to verify the ability of the technicians and maybe shops operating in their area helping to avoid the guess and replace tactic that empties customer’s bank accounts.

What about the shops? Should they be licensed too? Should there be requirements that say if you are going to work on a particular brand you should be tooled up and service ready to work on it? Would that provide a competitive edge against dealers or maybe a level playing field against the low price places that clearly do not meet the most basic standards?

Clearly this is a huge topic and there are many areas to consider. Let me know what you think. I will be happy to do a follow up with your thoughts.

Subscribe to Aftermarket Business World and receive articles like this every month….absolutely free. Click here.

Sponsored Recommendations

Snap-on Training: ADAS Level 2 - Component Testing

The second video for Snap-on's comprehensive overview of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), covering the fundamental concepts and functionalities essential for automotive...

Snap-on Training: Intro to ADAS

Snap-on's training video provides a comprehensive overview of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), covering the fundamental concepts and functionalities essential for automotive...

Snap-on Training: Guided Component Tests Level 2

The second video for Snap-on's comprehensive overview of Guided Component Tests, covering the fundamental concepts essential for diagnostic procedures.

Snap-on Training: Data Bus Testing and Diagnosis Part 1

Learn the basics of vehicle data buses and their diagnosis with Snap-on's Jason Gabrenas.

Voice Your Opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of Vehicle Service Pros, create an account today!