Sure it's not fair for the tech to not get paid.
Take it up with the dealership, as if I understand, it's the dealership, not the manufacturer who will pay or not pay the tech.
Now the dealership may or may not get reimbursed by the manufacturer, but that's part of the cost of being a dealer for them. Dealers get a somewhat exclusive relationship with the manufacturer. I.E. I'm not going to be able to go to Mazda and start ordering cars and put out my shingle as a Mazda dealership. Only AUTHORIZED dealers in their network are allowed to do that.
If a dealership want to sell new cars, part of the arrangement is they service the cars. If a tech is not getting paid, that's between the dealership and the tech.
All the customer knows is they have a car that is not performing as expected. Don't insert the customer into the relationship between the tech, the dealership and the manufacturer. It only erodes customer satisfaction.
I agree, let them know that if what is found is DAMAGE, such as rodents eating wires, and so on, they may be liable for the costs.
But leave the whole idea about techs getting paid or not getting paid or dealerships getting reimbursed or not behind the curtain. The customer just wants his car fixed.
Originally Posted by cb_13
We have to make the customer aware of the fact that they will be responsible for the diagnostic fee if something is found to not be under warranty. I always use the example of rodent damage to wiring.
Someone stated that it is not fair to be charged on something under warranty but I'd argue that it's not fair for a flat rate tech to not receive pay for diagnostic time just because of the age/mileage of the vehicle either. It's all in how you explain it. In all reality if the customer blows up about just the potential for paying for diagnostic if the cause is not warrantable that's probably not a customer I'm interested in keeping.