Bob Ulrich

Editor

Bob Ulrich was named Modern Tire Dealer editor in August 2000. He joined the magazine in 1985 as assistant editor, and has been responsible for gathering statistical information for MTD's "Facts Issue" since 1993. He has won numerous awards for editorial and feature writing, including five gold medals from the International Automotive Media Association. Bob earned a B.A. in English literature from Ohio Northern University and has a law degree from the University of Akron.

» More

Right to Repair legislation: blog, blog, blog or blah, blah, blah?

By: Bob Ulrich

Since writing my first B.O.B. blog in November 2008, I have addressed the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act on a number of occasions. I back both national and state Right to Repair legislation because I believe independent repair shops need access to the same repair information afforded car dealerships.

Like the Automobile Service Association (ASA), I would rather avoid government involvement of any kind. But unlike the ASA, I see no other option in this case.

Not everyone agrees with me. I get somewhat regular e-mails from one aftermarket technician who thinks I'm one of the following:

A) an idiot.

B) ignorant.

C) a pawn to (insert group or organization here).

D) All of the above.

I'll refer to him as "Ken" because, well, that's his name.

I am well aware of the agreement between the ASA and two automobile manufacturer associations that requires OEMs to provide the information to independents. Not all the vehicle manufacturers have actually signed the agreement -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC come to mind, although they are both on record as supporting it -- which means it is not universal.

Bottom line, the agreement is not enforceable. Yes, there is some procedural recourse to a repair shop if a participating vehicle manufacturer doesn't comply, but unless the manufacturer ultimately agrees to arbitration,  it cannot be forced to give up the information. And the process can take weeks.

I respect the ASA's position, and wish it was acceptable. But too many independent tire dealers have complained to me that getting the information is harder than pulling teeth.

The proper legislation would change that.

That brings me back to Ken. First of all, almost any interaction with industry participants is good. When the comments are too inflammatory or disrespectful, I still read them, I just don't run them.

Ken is like that. Passionate about government intervention (doesn't like it), passionate about me (see previous multiple choice options). He's always fun to read, but calling a tire dealer a "big, fat liar" isn't going to get him published.

To the best of my knowledge, I've run two of his e-mails; to see his responses, click on "ARA supports Right to Repair Act" and "'Vehicle Diagnosis' is am must-read for..."

One I didn't run claimed the 10-page ASA agreement was enforceable, so I decided to look at it in more detail. I called Mary Hutchinson of the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF) to find out more. She described NASTF as a conduit through which the aftermarket and the manufacturing segment can communicate.

According to its Web site (www.nastf.org), NASTF "is a not-for-profit, no-dues task force established to facilitate the identification and correction of gaps in the availability and accessibility of automotive service information, service training, diagnostic tools and equipment, and communications for the benefit of automotive service professionals. NASTF is a voluntary, cooperative effort among the automotive service industry, the equipment and tool industry, and automotive manufacturers."

ASA works with NASTF, but NASTF has taken no position on any Right to Repair legislation. She did explain to me how her organization's procedure to get missing repair information works. It does give the dealer some, if not immediate, recourse.

I was glad Ken brought the subject up. My next call wil be to the ASA, an organization I talked with when R2R (which is how Ken refers to it) first became an issue. I learned a lot from talking with Mary at NASTF, and wanted more insight about the agreement. I will call ASA next, and write about it at a later date.

In the meantime, I hope I get some comments about this blog. I bet I'll get at least one.

(For more information on the topic, check out these Web sites: www.asashop.org and www.righttorepair.org.)

Related Topics: ASA, NASTF, Right to Repair Act

comments

1. Jake | August 17, 2010 at 10:28AM
   The right to repair issue has been prominent in the auto industry for way to damn long already. I am tired of listening and reading about this dead horse being continually flogged even deader. I deal with the same issues everyday "Oh...crap....we can't get this part aftermarket,lets call the dealer so we can get an overpriced part that we will make no profit margin on..YAAY!" And for that matter, the lack of available parts from the dealerships. Having aftermarket support increases the amount of available parts for my customers. Until it actually happens, I am far from holding my breath. You think the dealerships would be more compliant as they can barely handle the workload they have,considering their warranty mechanical supercedes the actual mechanical jobs they have or can even handle.

2. Ken | August 24, 2010 at 09:26AM
   Thanks,Bob. The squeaky wheel finally got some grease. The fact is that the federal government told the independent aftermarket and the OE's to work out their differences because they just had no desire to be part of it. The OEs and the aftermarket came up with the agreement that is available for all to view,and it is working. Not perfect,but better than if there was a thick layer of government in the mix. If the deal is broken,ASA will certainly be right back on the same side as the R2R supporters,along with the evidence of the broken deal,and the OE will be held accountable. As much as I distrust government,being held in contempt of Congress is a powerful thing. So far,however,the information is there,and attempting to legislate something that is already there is not just a solution looking for a problem,it is calling the OEs all liars until proven otherwise,which is not in the best spirit of cooperation. The agreement is being honored,and the only ones breaking that honor are the R2R supporters.
   
   There are serious ulterior motives for the parts people. I can't go into a lot of the examples that I know of,but there is much information out there pertaining to manufacturers wanting information to make replacement parts and/or accessories that are compatible with OE systems. This amounts to theft of intellectual property,and despite assurances otherwise,it IS what the parts people that are behind R2R want. It is the disingenuous behavior of the aftermarket parts companies that has angered me the most about R2R. If NAPA,CarQuest,all the other chains,CARE,AAIA,etc. supporting really care about the independent service providers,why have they been waging a decade long,multi-million dollar campaign to inform our customers that without this law,their local mechanic can't fix modern vehicles? In my opinion,they have done more harm to the aftermarket repair industry than they can ever hope to fix.

3. Wayne | August 26, 2010 at 07:00AM
   I am in favor of R2R(much simpler, thanks Ken). Unfortunately when big lobbyist with deep pockets spend money to fight issues, they remain in the spotlight all too long. In MA, ads claim the R2R (if passed) will allow 2nd tier (knock off) manufacturers to make parts for vehichles and those parts will be manufactured off shore thus once again the US will lose jobs. Go figure...? I am pretty sure aftermarket parts are available today. We just want the consumer to have a choice when deciding where to have their vehicle serviced... it's all about the consumer. Besides, Dealers are pretty busy these days handling recall after recall.

4. ray | August 27, 2010 at 06:02AM
   the people in the repair/service industry that feel there is no need for the right to repair legislation evidently do not work on too many european vehicles, especially audi and vw. vw knows that their sales in the us should be better, but will not admit withholding repair information is a reason for the lost of new car sales