The future of vehicle and customer safety involves every department in the dealership. It’s true - some dealers can focus too much on a single department or their CSI feedback. Inevitably, management ends up chasing negative feedback instead of proactively addressing problems before they manifest into something systemic. In my opinion, it is all interconnected.

The customer experience isn’t limited to any one department. It can be impacted positively and negatively by each department’s interaction with the customer. The customer could have a great experience in the sales process and then a poor experience in F&I. Or they could be on their way to becoming a loyal customer and have a poor experience in service. Think of a dealership (or any business for that matter) as a chain. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link. How then can a dealership shore up its processes and mindset to optimize the experience?

1.    Sales – Consumers aren’t just looking for the best price, but also a vehicle that they can rely on and a seller that can be trusted. With a new car, the trust is backed by a warranty. With a pre-owned vehicle, consumers are not as secure but tend to give franchised dealerships the benefit of the doubt over independent dealers and private parties. Dealers have different options to acquire used inventory, including at trade-in, auction, or through a private party. Regardless of the method, consumers are relying on the dealership, its integrity, and branding to sell them a safe vehicle that will meet their needs. They also want peace of mind and the security that comes with purchasing from a franchised dealer. Play up this fact in your social media, on your website, and in your marketing. But only when you can back it up with actions that validate what you say. There’s a high price to pay with consumers when you say one thing and then do another.

2.    Service – Consumers bring their vehicles to a franchise dealership because they trust their vehicles will be serviced properly. While they can also service at an independent repair facility, consumer surveys they would rather service at a franchise dealership when it comes to preserving their vehicle as an asset. That trust, however, can come at a price if dealerships don’t do their due diligence in service. Yes, dealerships (and service advisors) typically do a good job with their service recommendations. Where it gets annoying for consumers is if they have just completed their service and the next day discover they have an open recall that could have been handled during the service visit. The service department failed to check, and that inaction can easily erode any customer loyalty the dealership may have built with them. It is a simple process these days to check the VIN for any outstanding recalls.

3.    Safety -- When vehicles are acquired, most of the time those acquisition values are made via various software platforms showing historical sales data in addition to a physical inspection for appearance. Few valuations include open recalls. The vehicle may be the most beautiful and desirable, but if recalls aren’t factored in and it is an off-brand vehicle, you will either need to send the vehicle to a competing brand to get the recall repaired or decide to sell without fixing. Is not fixing the recall pre-retail within your rights and legal? Yes, it is. Will it be for long? Eventually, the law will change. What is the right thing to do for the consumer? At the very least, you should be transparent about the presence of a recall. And, no, I don’t think signed disclosures highlight the dangers enough for consumers.

Still, I understand the difficulty of selling a vehicle when you lead with how dangerous it is. You only need to lead with a message of driver safety. Regardless, any issues that arise won’t be blamed on the manufacturer but rather on the dealership unless you are fully transparent. It is better to ensure that car is 100% safe and free of recalls. At least be transparent about the presence of recalls and where to go to resolve them. You might even go the extra step and identify for the new owner how to resolve the recall with the franchise dealer of that vehicle's brand. I’ve heard of dealers who even scheduled the repair appointment at the time of sale to mitigate any risks. While it is legal to sell a used car with an open recall, the dealership is still on the hook financially under state product liability laws.

Neglecting any of these points can detract from your dealership’s brand integrity. Any mishap or mistake, whether intentional or not, can affect future business. Brand integrity is imperative to the future health of any business. Building trust with your customers based on experience, quality, and safety, will ultimately determine whether consumers choose to do business with you. Lose trust and you will lose business.

If you’ve never seen the movie “The Matrix," the basic premise of the story is that machines have taken over the planet and placed every human in this false sense of security while, at the same time, using them as energy sources (human batteries). I’m not saying that’s what’s happening or where we’re headed, but hear me out.

In the case of electric vehicles, many real challenges are facing us now. Are they good for the environment? Many think so. Does our opinion matter? Probably not – we’re moving towards electrification and there’s little to suggest that the trajectory will change. But here are some things to think about as follows:

1.    I wrote a blog referring to an incident that happened in Virginia that created a 48-mile traffic jam in the freezing weather. It was reported that many electric vehicles were simply running out of electricity and, because the drivers were trapped on the freeway, had no way to charge their vehicles which ultimately led to them having no heat to stay warm.

2.    Another blog shared concerns about the financial barrier to entrance by consumers as most simply can’t afford electric vehicles. Even the least expensive.

3.    The same blog discusses how dealerships will need to find (or train) technicians on repairing these vehicles, as they are basically computers with wheels. This is a career area in which technicians are in short supply and in high demand.

4.    Then we must think about safety. This blog discusses the many “safety” features electric vehicles have – especially the autonomous self-driving features – which aren’t perfect. In some cases, they have presented safety risks to consumers – not those in other vehicles -- but rather pedestrians and cyclists.

5.    I also discussed how some vehicles aren’t giving pedestrians the right of way (which is a law in just about every state).

Please don’t label me an EV hater. Truth is, I see electrification as an organic progression of automotive innovation. It feels like a generational leap for most of us because all we’ve known is the internal combustion engine (ICE). Most Americans, I believe, have some degree of nostalgia for the smell of gas, the roar of an engine, and tinkering with engines. For collectors like myself (I own a 1972 Cheyenne C10), the love affair won’t end any time soon. 

However, for the next generation of vehicle owners, the electric drivetrain is past due. The chip shortage has contributed to astronomic adoption rates, but the transition will take time. All the criticisms of EVs mirror those lobbed at Henry Ford many years ago by horse and buggy purveyors. With that said, I have no problem lobbying for vehicle safety – EVs and ICE. I’m also cautious about so much government intervention and whether it’s artificially supporting market forces that would not likely have taken place. 

California mandated that no new internal combustion engine vehicles will be sold after 2035. Then, a few days later, asked EV owners not to charge their vehicles to lessen the load on the power grid. They did say that this was an opt-in program (at the moment). I remember when California did the same thing with air conditioning in the home. If you let the electric company install a box on your air conditioner which they could use to turn it off during an overburdening of the power grid, the cost of electricity would be discounted. I'm not an energy expert, but I am a resident of the Golden State. California needs to update its electric grid for existing demand. And the tens of millions of citizens that need to charge their EVs (whether that is at home or in between point A and point B) will simply add to that burden on the power grid.

There are some things to think about – what would have happened in Florida if people escaping Hurricane Ian had not charged their vehicles and then the entire power grid was wiped out?

Back to the beginning of this blog and why I mentioned the movie “The Matrix.” California knows it needs a solution to reinforce the power grid and avoid brownouts. Their solution - use private citizens' EVs as a huge mass source of electricity whereby the state can literally suck the electricity from your EV and add the power to the state’s supply of electricity, according to Wired magazine. By the way, this is not a novelty. A program exactly like this has been in pilot for quite some time in Europe.

To recap, consider the initiative for everyone to own an electric vehicle; the lack of infrastructure to support everyone charging their EVs; the state asking everyone not to charge their vehicles because the power grid can’t support it; and, ultimately, the “opt-in” program which would reverse the process of the state supplying consumers energy -- asking consumers instead to allow the state to use consumers’ EVs as a massive network of “batteries” to bolster the power grid.

Considering all these facts perhaps, combined with everything else I’ve mentioned, we have more questions than answers. That doesn't mean that we should advocate a derailing of the path we're in. On the contrary, I'm looking for solutions. I'm also betting that innovations will pour in from the private sector. I'm not betting on government – I'm betting on the smartest minds in the business to deliver in ways that electrify the second coming of the automobile. Let's just remain steadfast in our commitment to safety, convenience, energy independence, and affordability while also delivering on the hype. That’s a sustainable model I’ll bet on. 

Not too long ago, in a parallel universe, we were all familiar with, vehicles lived lives then passed on at about the 100,000-mile mark. Whether they passed privately or through a dealership, at some point, they pretty much moved on to an auction, a wholesaler, a parts recycling center, or, potentially, a Buy-Here-Pay-Here store. Used vehicle values plummet at the 100,000-mile mark for two reasons. First, franchise dealers see them unfit for retail, and second, lenders rarely finance them.

When a consumer comes in wanting to buy a new (or new to them) vehicle and has a trade with more than 100,000 miles, the usual dealership values the trade by how much a wholesaler would pay for it. Many dealerships have wholesalers they deal with frequently, so the sales (or used car) manager simply makes a phone call, gets a buy-bid, then presents the trade-in value to the customer. Those vehicles then either go to an auction, get sold to a used car lot, or a Buy-Here-Pay-Here for cheap.

In today’s seller’s market, however, low inventory levels for new and used car acquisition have caused many franchise dealers to rethink their previous "set-in-stone" rules. An article in Automotive News shares how some dealers no longer shy away from these 100,000-mile cars; but, rather, embrace them. Because of consumer demand, dealers are making a rather substantial profit. It appears that 200,000 miles is the new 100,000 miles, according to an executive editor at Autotrader. Consumers aren’t running for the hills, but quite the opposite - they are embracing it.

These days, with new vehicles often commanding pricing well over MSRP, consumers are increasingly interested in finding a quality pre-owned car -- even if it has more than 100,000 miles on it. Because lenders are buying deeper (worse credit) and willing to extend loans for these vehicles, some manufacturers have loosened qualifications for CPOs, so dealers are willing to retail them at higher costs. Dealers are also willing to ensure that the vehicle is mechanically sound and properly reconditioned before it hits the front line for the simple fact that they will now – for the time being – make a profit.

While it’s certainly good that franchise dealers are taking these steps, there are many more independent dealers across the country, and many of them don’t want to, or can’t, invest this reconditioning money into a vehicle pre-sale. Sure, they can make it look pretty; but many don’t even have their own service departments to perform repairs or even a proper safety inspection.

I’m not here to say that every vehicle sold – whether by a franchise or independent dealer – is inherently unsafe. BUT data confirms that there is a greater safety risk as that odometer creeps even higher.

Those premium prices that consumers are paying for these pre-owned vehicles may satisfy a need (or want) for a vehicle in the short term, but what happens when things go wrong with the vehicle (which everyone knows occurs with aging vehicles) There is typically not going to be any warranty on the vehicle for the consumer to lean on, the repairs may exceed what they can afford, and, in some cases, old vehicles are not even included in recalls. In this “perfect storm,” a customer could be left with 48+ months to go on their car payment with a vehicle that no longer works. It is a known fact that repossessions are currently rising.

In the end, it’s just as important for a consumer to know that a vehicle is unsafe and that there “may” be an inherent risk by buying a vehicle with such high mileage. Consumers must be cognizant of potential risks and consequences when making purchasing decisions. It’s not only recalls that make roads unsafe… ultimately, but unsafe cars as a whole do also. And nobody wants that.

The automotive industry is experiencing the most dramatic change since its inception. Many questions abound due to a multitude of policies impacted by manufacturing, legislation, inventory levels, and, of course, the gradual phase-out of internal combustion engines (ICE) vehicles by 2035 – which isn't as far away as it sounds.

All those actions could be a lengthy blog, in and of themselves, but here, I’d like to focus on service. Not just service departments in general, but customer service as well. To start, almost one hundred years ago, service departments were the origin of dealerships. Manufacturers were making vehicles, but they had no infrastructure in place for those vehicles to be repaired, regularly maintained, or take care of recalls. They certainly couldn’t expect buyers to make a road trip to Detroit every time their vehicle needed an oil change, right? That would be ridiculous. So, manufacturers started franchising their brands to gain market share and provide convenient places for consumers to purchase vehicles and keep their vehicles well maintained thereafter.

An interesting article in Car and Driver shares a study performed by the independent research firm Pied Piper. According to the study, direct-to-consumer brands such as Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid, were the worst performing brands in their Prospect Satisfaction Index (PSI). This self-funded study has been conducted yearly since 2007 and measures customer satisfaction not just amongst brands, but also individual dealerships.

With legislation forcing manufacturers to change their future production and model plans, they may want to think about sacrificing innovation at the expense of service. Great service should always matter as part of protecting the brand. Whether at the manufacturer level, or the dealership, both OEM and dealership have an interest in doing so. If customer service (or service itself) goes down, fewer consumers will consider the brand.

Dealers can use recalls to protect the brand by getting vehicles repaired quickly and building customer loyalty. Recalls aren't going away, even with electric vehicles (EVs). The numbers show that recalls will not only go up but will also necessitate that dealerships have tech-savvy technicians. Manufacturers that include dealers – rather than exclude them through a push for less on-the-lot inventory and a transition to a “virtual” showroom – will win over consumers.

When oil changes go away, how do dealers connect with customers? As over-the-air (OTA) repairs to patch faulty software become more routine, it may be assumed that consumers will have less of a need for service at the dealership. Not true. While EVs have fewer moving parts, there will continue to be a need for replacement electronic components, alignments, and battery checks. Wear items like brake pads, windshield wipers, and especially tires will require intervention from a technician. The vehicle may be able to manage service alerts remotely, driving more service appointments. OTAs will negate the need for consumers to visit your service department, but the volume of software updates will annoy consumers and overwhelm dealerships. This, of course, will hurt your service revenue’s bottom line, but current trends regarding EV recalls suggests that there will be plenty of work to do. Recalls present significant revenue, protect margins, and provide brand and dealership exclusivity – that won’t go away with the introduction of EVs.

What is changing is the consumer’s loyalty to specific brands. Long and short of it, the OEMs are going to struggle with differentiation as EVs and third-party vehicle operating systems become more standardized. This will be the opportune time for dealerships to position themselves to win in local markets, where service matters to consumers. Start building your customer base with a goal of brand and dealership loyalty now. Every recall (which occur far too often) presents an opportunity for your dealership to accomplish these goals, shore up those customers and protect service revenue. Waiting until it's a necessity – which is inevitable – may present dealerships with more challenges and an uphill battle. Dealerships that start now will be ahead of the game as the industry continues to evolve.

For as far back as I can remember, pedestrians have had the right of way when it comes to crossing the street. Cars weigh thousands of pounds and can kill people (or multiple people) in a minute or less if the driver is distracted or intoxicated. Yes, it is bad for people’s health to walk into oncoming traffic. That’s like playing the video game Frogger. You lose more times than you win. But who decides whether people win, or cars win? In almost every state, people have the right of way and cars must yield to pedestrians at crosswalks and lights. What if that were to change?

Let’s go back in time a little. According to Jalopnik, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) thought it would be a great idea to celebrate “National Pedestrian Safety Month’ by telling people not to get hit by cars. Duh, right? I’m sure our tax dollars were well spent with that promotion. Fast forward to today and Ford is patenting an augmented reality app that pedestrians can use to see if an autonomous vehicle will stop at the intersection… or not… so that they won’t be hit. Seriously? The article goes on to share the writer’s sentiments on a couple of things that I absolutely agree with. First, it's not particularly safe for people to be walking around staring at their phones, and second, the app only works to alert the pedestrian, not the driver -- the car can tell pedestrians whether it plans to run through that intersection but does not give a pedestrian the ability to tell the car to stop. “Hey, I’m walking here!”

Vehicle safety is always at the top of my mind. An extension of that is the safety of pedestrians. To confess, I’ve never hit any pedestrians with my car, but I can only conclude it’s not a pleasant experience for the driver either. But what if there is no driver? Those autonomous vehicles will likely have passengers in them. If the vehicle fails to stop, one could easily see all sorts of chaos happening including collisions with other cars, bicycles, or pedestrians. Doesn’t sound like a good mix to me. In the article, Ford’s response was simply, “Ford is a leading automotive innovator and submits patents on new inventions as a normal course of business…” Interesting take on a technology that doesn’t involve a vehicle.

To add another important viewpoint to this issue, Motor Trend magazine reports that consumer advocate Ralph Nader begged the NHTSA to pull Tesla's "Full Self-Driving" software. He feels technology is growing faster than it should. In the article, he stated, "No one is above the laws of manslaughter." He released a full statement in which he further stated, "Americans must not be test dummies..."

There are many challenges our roads and highways will present as the percentage of autonomous cars increases. This is just another one that, at least, one manufacturer is thinking about despite how crazy an idea it may seem. I’m sure that there will be more coming of which we haven't even thought about.

Then, of course, there are technological and mechanical concerns. If you are riding (notice I didn’t say driving) in an autonomous vehicle reading the paper or distracted and the wheel pops off going seventy on the freeway, how do you intervene and move to safety? Or do you leave that up to the car as well?

With bipartisan support in the House of Representatives looking to boost self-driving vehicle technology and production according to Automotive News, autonomous vehicles are coming. And they’re coming as fast as legislation can be passed and manufacturers can make them.

They’re on their way and maybe there’s nothing we can do to stop it. I’m not sure we should stop it as much as I think we need to have a controlled burn here. What’s the rush to push autonomous vehicles before the technology has been fully vetted? Perhaps the real question is what’s at stake? Should we be human training wheels for the advancement of technologies that have limited benefits for the majority of Americans? Now is the best time to look both ways before crossing this street.

According to an article in Jalopnik, GM has started delivering its new Cadillac Lyriq EV to consumers. However, they are making these early adopters sign an NDA that prohibits them from talking to anyone outside of GM about their experience driving it. Also, consumers cannot leave reviews or communicate about it other than with GM employees and---get this---then it can only be verbal. Leaves no paper trail, right?

The National Highway Transportation Administration (NHTSA) is unhappy about this for fear that Lyriq owners might be apprehensive about reporting a safety recall to NHTSA. According to a report in the Detroit Free Press, in an email, NHTSA spokesperson Lucia Sanchez stated, “NHTSA relies on reports from consumers as an important source of information in evaluating potential safety defects. Any agreement that may prevent or dissuade consumers from reporting safety concerns to NHTSA is unacceptable." Also, the NHTSA is concerned that GM’s actions could motivate other automakers to adopt similar policies. NDAs for car buyers aren’t new, as Tesla proposed one as part of their latest driver assistance software rollout.

Two key pillars at NHTSA are to encourage consumers to report safety issues and concerns and to motivate manufacturers and dealers to ensure the safety of their vehicle owners as well as other drivers on the road. While a vast majority of NHTSA investigations begin with the OEM’s transparent disclosure of defects, a select few arise directly from vehicle owners. Any attempt to silence or intimidate owners – even with financial compensation as a condition to maintain that discretion – threatens the vehicle safety ecosystem. In GM’s defense, the OEM maintains that these Lyriq owners are not prevented from communicating with NHTSA about defects, safety issues, or any matters that might be of interest to the government agency. 

In the very near future, ICE, EVs, and perhaps even autonomous vehicles will be driving side-by-side on our roads and highways. If any of these vehicles have a safety issue, it affects all of those sharing the road, not just the driver of the vehicle.

Transparency is the ONLY way all involved can know what action needs to be taken to ensure a safe vehicle and repair any safety issues. Since the inception of the agency, NHTSA and OEMs have achieved impressive statistics when it comes to vehicle safety. The dark days of consumer fears regarding manufacturing defects and the distrust of OEMs are a distant memory. I don’t think any of us want to go back to that. Forcing early adopters of the Lyriq to sign an NDA, and to have to solely report their concerns to GM, does not seem like the most optimum solution.

According to Eric Gordon, a lawyer at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, “We're talking about automakers interfering with the flow of information to NHTSA and that is something they cannot do. No. 1: NHTSA will win. But it's also a big PR disaster to have a headline that says, 'an automaker interferes with consumer safety reporting.’"

I hope these consumers understand that an NDA does not legally prevent them from reporting these concerns. However, my concern is that we’ll see more factory NDAs and that owner confusion may silence owners from saying anything to anybody. And that’s not good for our industry.

Many vehicle manufacturers and vendors are developing autonomous technology and incorporating it into the latest vehicles. The key factor here is that this technology has to be tested. And not only tested but tested in real-world driving conditions including the many variables it could encounter. Other passenger vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and any number of obstacles that a normal driver could encounter.

Autonomous vehicle manufacturers need permission from each state to do these tests in real-world environments and they need to clock miles in the millions to show that the vehicles are safe. They do have operators present in the vehicle in case something goes awry. Think of it like the old driver’s education cars with a steering wheel, gas, and brake pedal on the passenger side in case the instructor had to take over control.

In some cases, however, just like staring at white lines forever on a road trip, things can get a little dicey. Maybe attention lapsed for a moment. Maybe it's the bumps on the sides of the roads designed to get your attention should you drift. Maybe the vehicle has a lane-deviation warning feature. No human (or apparently, vehicle) can respond in less than .2 seconds.

An article in Wired magazine proves this point. To summarize, “The Uber driving system—which had been in full control of the car for 19 minutes at that point—registered a vehicle ahead that was 5.6 seconds away, but it delivered no alert to her. The computer then nixed its initial assessment; it didn’t know what the object was. Then it switched the classification back to a vehicle, then waffled between vehicle and ‘other.’ At 2.6 seconds from the object, the system identified it as a 'bicycle.’ At 1.5 seconds, it switched back to considering it ‘other.’ Then back to ‘bicycle’ again. The system generated a plan to try to steer around whatever it was but decided it couldn't. Then, at 0.2 seconds to impact, the car let out a sound to alert Vasquez that the vehicle was going to slow down. At two hundredths of a second before impact, traveling at 39 mph, Vasquez grabbed the steering wheel, which wrested the car out of autonomy and into manual mode. It was too late. The smashed bike scraped a 25-foot wake on the pavement. A person lay crumpled in the road.”

Do you know how long the time difference is between 2/10th of a second and 2/100ths? It took you longer to read this sentence. The car hit the bicyclist and they died. It is important to point out that this is not an “anti-Uber” blog.  This is simply an example of the point I am making about this technology.

Now we get down to the nitty-gritty. Who is at fault? The autonomous vehicle? Or the operator? The operator had been trained to pretty much “let the car do its own thing” while the car had been programmed to recognize and act. This is exactly the type of incidents that automakers have been telling people that autonomous cars will prevent. Yet, in this case (and in many others), it didn't. While it was this person's profession to monitor and let the vehicle do its thing, many consumers are buying vehicles with this technology simply based on the ooh-aah factor.

Ultimately, it Is tough to sue a car. Someone got killed by an autonomous car. It had an operator charged with monitoring what it did. Do you blame the car for its 2/10th of a second notification -- or the driver? These are questions that will continue to come up and I guarantee that one of these days, a court is going to decide. And that could change the history – or at least extend its adoption – of new technology well into our future, despite how enticing it seems to be.

Automotive News recently reported that a Ford dealership in Texas, and Ford Motor Co., are facing a lawsuit by a woman who incurred severe injuries during a collision when the passenger-side airbag deployed and expelled shrapnel resulting in the loss of her left eye. She is now suing the OEM and dealership.

She has been advised by legal counsel that it is Ford’s responsibility to put safe vehicles on the road and, believe it or not, the vehicle was recently in the dealership to get the Takata airbag (an almost 10-year-old recall) repaired. However, they only replaced the driver’s side airbag, not the passenger’s side. That mistake proved costly to the passenger and, ultimately, weakens the legal defense for the dealership.

There have been many injuries and deaths (19 deaths and four hundred injuries) involving Takata airbags in the last decade and this is the largest recall in automotive history. Takata itself filed for bankruptcy and was acquired, but the lingering impact persists. Manufacturers still need airbags to build and distribute vehicles to dealerships. A different supplier may appear and offer more reliable airbags but, for now, manufacturers need to continue production and dealers still need vehicles to sell.

According to the article, the finger-pointing is heating up. In an official response to Automotive News, a Ford spokesperson, Catherine Hargett, stated “In this instance, Ford went to substantial lengths to have the inflator repaired, sending over 30 recall notices (before and after the failed repair) to the registered owner and even sending a mobile repair unit to the owner’s home and knocking on the door.”

For the moment, there are plenty of unanswered questions in this case. Was the injured party the owner of the vehicle? If not, it is very possible she was not included in Ford’s efforts to notify the owner. It is reported that they attempted to notify the registered owner multiple times. If the dealership itself (which did not respond to Automotive News’ questions) did attempt to notify the registered owner, was it the registered owner who brought the vehicle in to the dealership? For example, if a child or friend of the registered owner is the primary driver, and the person that takes the vehicle into the dealership for service, would the dealership attempt to contact this driver, while Ford attempts to contact the actual registered owner?

There are a lot of variables here and we will not have the answers to these questions anytime soon. This does, however, illustrate the complexities of contacting primary drivers and those bringing the vehicle in for service. It is imperative that the correct person is notified and that all safety recall repairs are completed. It is no mystery – recapturing out-of-warranty vehicles into the dealership is extremely difficult, even with a dangerous recall at hand. Consumers, for the most part, intend to take care of recalls, but are confused about the process and are not necessarily thrilled with investing the time to address a vehicle repair. As an industry, we need to continue to streamline our processes and do a better job of winning back these lost customers by rolling out the red carpet. Perhaps the service experience has improved since the last time the owner was in the dealership. Owners often assume that there are costs involved or that they will lose the use of their vehicle for days. Lastly, when vehicles are in the service lane, it is imperative that we catch every recall, every time. There is a lot at stake, and you can’t afford to be wrong or careless.   

While the dealership has yet to respond, the bottom line is that this situation has three parties that the plaintiff is blaming – Ford, the dealership, and the owner of the vehicle that collided with their vehicle. Regardless of the outcome, one of the three will be held responsible. And that is sad considering that someone, whoever that is, did bring the vehicle in for a recall repair which was not fully completed (for whatever reason) and it ended up in a tragedy. In all likelihood, a jury will never hear this case. OEMs are on the hook for manufacturing defects regardless of ensuing recalls and attempts to notify the owner or dealerships that do not perform the necessary repairs. This case will settle out of court and both Ford and the dealership are going to pay. The question I have is how Ford will handle the situation with the dealer. 

According to an article in MarketSource, past NADA Chairman, Charlie Gilchrist estimates that within the 16,500 dealership members, 76,000 technicians will be needed by 2026.

There is a large pool of existing technicians who are at are near retirement age and few young people that are interested in working in the automotive field as a technician. Automotive dealers have a tough time finding qualified new technicians and some simply cannibalize the competition’s staff by offering more attractive pay.

In my opinion, the lack of interest from young people is due to negative perceptions about the job and the career path. We’re also not doing a great job communicating the financial rewards that are possible. A great technician can make amazing money without having to invest in a college degree or get saddled with a ton of debt. In short, the lack of enthusiasm has more to do with a lack of education about the industry and the potential the position provides. An effort needs to be made to reach out to these young people.

On that note, I love this hypothetical (and extreme) job description on Wrenchway.com:

"Become a technician! You can expect a rewarding career in which you will work long hours (but may or may not get paid for all of them), you will work in a modern facility built in 1925 with three inches of oil dry on the floor in an area in which everything is dirty and you cannot find anything you are looking for and may get hurt tripping on something looking for the thing you will never find. The general public will assume you are a crook trying to fix things that don't need to be fixed just to get more money from the customer. Your manager will second guess everything you diagnose and repair. You will receive factory training each year so you can try and better recoup some of the hours you don't get paid for at a flat rate. You will eat or starve based on which service writer you get (and you better hope you get one that can actually sell or you'll never make any money). The rest of the dealership will ignore you, never consider you for promotion, and rarely even acknowledge your existence. You will bust your fingers, knuckles, head, develop back problems, and more! Almost forgot, and you need to spend about $30,000 dollars on your own tools! Good Luck!"

For those in the job market today seeking a career path, this wouldn’t be very appealing… for many reasons! What was intended to be a gross exaggeration doesn’t fall too far from the truth and sheds light on the areas we need to improve if we are to recruit the next generation of young people to the industry.

So, what is to be done. I always like to look to winners in our industry for inspiration. One dealer in Texas found a solution that is working for his dealership. That is to teach the value and benefits of a career as an automotive technician while the students are still young. According to Automotive News, to date, Toyota of Cedar Park has secured 24 service technicians by working with local high schools and offering training and internship programs to high school students. In a partnership with several high schools, the dealership offers internship programs where students visit the dealership three days a week for two hours. The dealership gets a head start by showing these students the value of choosing a career as a technician, while they can also begin training and evaluating these students. According to the article, the program has a 97 percent retention rate.

There could be several such sources for potential technicians if you are willing to get creative and step outside the box a little. From OEM training programs to universities that have automotive-specific degrees (including Northwood University). It's no secret that many organizations and industries are struggling with recruiting talent, particularly those where the barriers of entry appear insurmountable for young people. Here are a couple of items that need to change to recruit more technicians:

·      Remove the cost of tools. When I was in high school shop, we shared the tools. As students, we took pride in keeping our shop clean, tools at the ready, and organized so that we could be as efficient as possible. We need to teach these skills too.

·      Offer competitive starting pay. Fast food retail outlets are pushing $25/hour offers to young kids. For those contemplating a career in automotive, give them a reason to start early without taking a financial hit.

·      Recruit more young women. We’re missing out on half the potential candidates when we solely focus on their male counterparts. 

·      Recruit like a tech company. Tomorrow’s technicians are going to require computer and electronics skills too. Does your shop reflect professionalism and serve as a backdrop for future engineers?

·      Map out a career path for new recruits. Illustrate the income path, what new skills they'll learn along the way, and where they'll receive additional support and training.

·      Create roles and tasks for new recruits, especially for those who are early achievers. It’s possible to place one of your rising stars in a mobile tech van to do nothing but swap out recalled airbags. Reward early and often.

In addition to posting a job description on Indeed, why not nurture interest in unexpected places and find individuals that may not yet have thought about becoming a technician, while it could be a great career path for them.

There are many opportunities to reach out to young people and share why becoming a technician is something they should consider. It just takes a little more creativity and thinking outside the box.

If you’ve never seen the movie “Titanic," you know the famous ending sequence where Rose is floating in freezing water on top of a door. As the frost sets in, lifeboats come but think that everyone has perished and there are no survivors. Rose, however, is still alive and remembers that a fellow victim of this horrible disaster had a whistle. She abandons the safety of her floating door and swims over to the person with the whistle… and starts to sound it. She eventually gets noticed by the rescuers and is ultimately saved from the same fate that her fellow passengers and crew succumbed to.

Manufacturing defects happen quite often and are a natural result of the manufacturing process. That's why OEMs have stepped up to notify NHTSA of defects that could lead to a safety risk. This is all part of the partnership between manufacturers and the government to promote transparency. For the most part, it’s working. In 2021, there were more service bulletins issued by OEMs than formal NHTSA campaigns. Still, some of these defects might have been preventable at their birth – while on the assembly line. In the interest of maintaining production levels and filling the supply chain, some can be overlooked, or known but not corrected. But factory employees do notice this happening and the outcome can get ugly… and expensive! In November 2021, CNN published a story about this and the largest award ever made to a whistleblower – an ex-engineer for Hyundai – who received $24 million for informing the NHTSA about safety lapses.

How does this affect the relationship between an OEM and engineers moving forward? It’s definitely the strategy that NHTSA embraced by offering rewards to company insiders who may be aware of these practices. What we don’t know is the motive behind this strategy. Perhaps the government is trying to prevent future recalls at their source. By offering cash rewards to employees of OEMs, perhaps employees will be more vigilant in reporting safety defects on the assembly line before they get to a dealership and, ultimately, in the hands of consumers. This can, however, create a wedge between the government and the OEMs by essentially using the OEM’s own employees to police their employer.

Could this become a snowball of engineers and factory workers crying wolf in the hopes of a big payday? This would even further dilute the authenticity of reports making the government's job harder to identify which reports are valid versus which are not. On the flip side, could it lead OEMs to slow production to prevent these instances and not be held liable for any issues after the fact? This, of course, leads to less new vehicle inventory which hurts car dealers by providing them with fewer vehicles to sell. Still, all it took was one instance to shake the confidence of the media and consumers about whether manufacturers are intentionally not disclosing information that threatens driver safety. I don't have any deep insight into the details of this specific event, but it doesn't shed the best light on our industry. At the very least, it undermines the decades-long work to promote vehicle safety and transparency. A black eye for sure, but there’s a lesson here.

Some may argue that this strategy of huge payouts to whistleblowers could lead to MORE recalls rather than less simply because of the – perhaps – quantity of unfounded reports by engineers and factory workers looking for a big payday and/or the lack of resources for the government to follow up with all of them. If you want to get even more cynical, an OEM could simply start diluting its staff when it feels threatened. All of these possibilities bring harm in one way or another to various parties.

These days, new cars cannot be sold with an open safety recall. But what is not always clear is how many of those new cars delivered to dealerships actually have safety issues from the start? And how long before these hidden defects become an official recall? A year? Two? All the while a consumer is driving their new vehicle with an unidentified (or unreported) safety issue, completely unknown to them.

The point is to ensure that vehicles are safe from the start. Nobody's perfect and mistakes happen. But, in the end, it is the consumer driving the vehicles and their fellow drivers' lives that are at stake. Whistle away and hope the OEMs fix the issues before those vehicles are headed on a 16-wheeler to dealerships. I want to believe this was an isolated issue. We really can’t afford to turn back the clock and turn our backs on consumer safety. There’s too much at stake.

With everyone's cooperation and quick action, it is not outside the realm of possibility for the trio of the government, OEMs, and the frontline workers to spot these things and take corrective measures immediately… which would ultimately lead to LESS recalls and safer roads for everyone.