Do you have a right to know?

[Earl Weiss]

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8359144&nav=menu188_7_1

>>>Thorsby says he has a "big problem" with car washes that keep secrets.

"I have a right to know what you're going to do to my car," he said. "Asking to know what chemicals they use -- I don't think that's an unreasonable request and responsible carwash operators typically will have that conversation with consumers."<<

See attached article. I must disagree with Mr. Thorsby.

On the one hand disclosure is good PR. That is different than having a right to know.


The process can certainly be considered proprietary. It would be asking for the formula for Coke. You drink the stuff but don't have a right to know.

 

[Danny]

My two cents...

I do not agree with Thorsby. It maybe bad PR to not inform the customer but it is the business's choice to share their sources of product or not. Ultimately his statement could be taken as far as the chemical manufacturer releasing their proprietary formula. How are they to keep a market advantage on superior products if they give away the formula?

He should ask resturaunts or bartenders for their recipes and see how far that gets him. Afterall you should have a right to know what you are putting in your body according to Thorsby's logic.

 

[pitzerwm]

I think that you guys missed the point. Mark, isn't talking about your "recipe". No customer is going to ask for the chemical make up of your wash. In the first place most of us don't have a clue. If you tell them that you use X brand of products and over the years, you have found them to produce the cleanest car, they will be happy. Maybe your equipment brand will be important. I'd say that 99% of your customers want a quick cheap clean wash, and won't ask you for the time of day. Chill out Earl

 

[MEP001]

I agree that the point was missed. Of course Coca Cola won't give up their formula, but they must list the ingredients. You most certainly have a right to know what's being put on your car or what's in what you put in your body.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I find that there is a fundamental misconception in many things. You often hear of "the public's right to know" . There is no such right. There is freedom of the press which is different. This is a freedom to report something. This is far different than requiring disclosure under a non existant right.

 

[Earl Weiss]

>>>Chill out Earl<<<

Heck, I haven't even hit luke warm yet.

 

[robert roman]

There are both community and workplace right-to-know requirements that give individuals (employees and general public) the right-to-know the chemicals to which they may be exposed to in their daily lives.

If a customer came to you and demanded to see the MSDS sheets for the products that you use in your operation, I don't believe that you would have a legal leg to stand on to deny them this right.

Many years ago when I was managing full-service, we accidently applied triple foam to a customer's vehicle. This woman (an attorney, of course)) was very upset because her dealer told her not to apply any wax products to her expensive luxury car. When I tried to assure her that there was nothing in the products that would harm her finish, she went into orbit and demanded to see the MSDS. I called the operations manager of the chain who gave me permission to do so. After reading the MSDS, she went into an even higher orbit because she discovered that the only difference in the chemical composition of three products (marketed as a cleaner, conditioner and polish) was the color of the dye. Consequently, she went after the company for fraud. I don't know what the final outcome was, but I can assure you that we lost a very good customer.

Although some of us may believe that the average person is operating with an 8th grade mentality and spending way too much time watching Idol and how to screw your neighbor TV programs, most people are not stupid. This is especially so when it comes to protecting their rights.

In the final analysi, the best business policy is transparency.

 

[mac]

I don't know what the final outcome was, but I can assure you that we lost a very good customer.

Although some of us may believe that the average person is operating with an 8th grade mentality and spending way too much time watching Idol and how to screw your neighbor TV programs, most people are not stupid.


Robert, I see two things here that seem odd. First, IMO, you did not lose a good customer. You lost someone who most likely went on to bother other people. Good riddance to her. Second, also IMO, I think most people are either stupid, or for lack of a better word, should be steralized so as not to perpetuate their lineage. Listen to any man on the street interview. Read any paper. There is no shortage of stupid people, many of them are in fact proud of it. Listen to any Obama supporter explain just one of his policies. Other than that, your answer made a lot os sense.

 

[Danny]

two more cents...

I believe there is a distinct difference in what a someone has a "right" to know and what someone "wants" to know. A customer who wants to know what is being used can simply ask. It is the operator's choice to tell them. It is the customer's choice to stay or go somewhere else. I agree that for 99% of the customers this is a non issue, they look at the finished services that were provided for the cost.

Most operator's do operate with transparency which keeps the customers happy and coming back. That is just good and smart business. I am sure we have all experienced informing a industry outsider about curiousity questions when it comes to cars and car washing. Ultimately nobody wants to harm another person or damage their property.

It has been my experience that the customers who do ask about chemicals are usually only familiar with big names like carnauba, teflon and HF and national brand names like Blue Coral or Armorall.

 

[rph9168]

In almost 30 years in the industry I have never had a customer ask about specific ingredients in chemicals. I think Robert's experience was beyond one in a million. I have had many ask such generic questions like, "Is that polish worth it? or "Will that sealant really protect my car?" or "How long does that protectant last?" These questions are well within a customer's bounds and any operator should be prepared to answer questions like these.

I would think anyone wanting to know more like chemical composition is looking more to cause a problem than seeking general information. I would handle them carefully. Whether or not I showed them any of that information would probably depend on the circumstances surrounding the request. If I felt there was a legitimate reason I probably would comply. If not, I would not volunteer the information.

Years ago David Horowitz did a TV program questioning the value of polishes in a car wash. Unfortunately he identified our brand of chemicals. We called Mr. Horowitz' office and offered complete disclosure. He never even bothered to respond. He wasn't interested to find out whether what he was saying was true or false. He was satisfied just to "stir the pot" and cause problems.

In the case of employees it should be part of every OHSA program to inform their employees about the chemicals they may come into contact and have up to date MSDS sheets that are easily accessible for them.

 

[robert roman]

Yes, my example was a one-in-a-million, but, with all due respect, I believe that some of you guys are barking up the wrong tree.

Let's consider a conveyor or in-bay automatic where the customer remains in the vehicle and the operator is using products containing HF or ABF. We all know of circumstances where this is occuring. If the customer comes to the operator and demands to see the MSDS and the operator refuses, I believe the operator is asking for nothing but trouble because the community (individual) does have the right to know. Furthermore, HF and ABF can lead to other problems like dermititis which may not be life threathening but is nonetheless a serious health concern. I contracted dermititis serveral times by working in carwash environments where the owners insisted on using products that contained HF or ABF.

When dispensed by arches, CTA or hand-held wands, this stuff gets into the ambient air and has the potential to be sucked into the interior compartment (where your customers are) by way of the A/C ventilation system just like fragrance or pit odor does. I doubt whether this potential liability even dawns on some these operators.

If you need an acidic cleaner to get the job done according to your quality standards, there are plenty of acidic cleaners on the market that do not contain HF or ABF. These chemicals may cost more but they can get the job done. There is absolutely no reason to continue using this stuff.

Bob Roman
www.carwashplan.com

 

[smokun]

Might the underlying issue really be GREED.

The article furnished a vivid wake-up call.

Let's face it. Unless you've been living on the moon, all carwash professionals have been cautioned about the use of hydrofluoric acid (HF).

All right, we know that it is a very effective cleaner... especially on disc-brake dust laden wheels.

But... we also know that it can easily maim or kill. Is the trade-off of risking an employee's safety really worth it?

As I understood Bob's well taken point to be... was that employees DO have a right to know. And employers have the legal responsibility to alert them to harmful conditions and provide safety equipment to minimize risk.

And we all have known (and maybe still know) operators who cheated by using HF even after knowing the downside, and hiding behind the excuse that nothing else cleans as good... for the price.

Is the bottom line an issue of "price"? If so, what cost can be put on an employee's safety?

Moreover, if it is a cost issue, has greed moved the bar so low... that we no longer care. How cheap can an operator get?

Stop the bull___!

 

[rph9168]

More Information on the Fluoride Ion

The problem is caused by the Fluoride ion found in Hydrofluoric Acid, Ammonium Bi Fluoride and Fluoric Acid. Here is some additional information regarding the most common forms found in the car wash industry HF and ABF both of which contain the dangerous Fluoride ion.

1. HF is one of the strongest inorganic acids available, used primarily for industrial purposes (i.e., etching glass, petroleum refining, and electronics manufacturing under a highly controlled environment)

2. When using HF at any known concentration that will clean, it will corrode most metals including stainless steel, attack concrete, pit glass, and negatively effect most painted surfaces.

3. HF is considered Toxic and therefore a known poison when absorbed through the skin, ingested or inhaled. The effects of the exposure may vary based on exposure time, concentration, surface coverage and the size of the person.

4. HF in a concentration above 0.5% may result in severe ocular damage to the eye. Fume exposure commonly causes eye irritation and can also cause ocular injury. Signs and symptoms may be delayed.

5. OSHA?s maximum permissible respiratory exposure limit is 3 parts per million average exposure in an 8-hour period.

6. Many insurers will not issue policies if they are aware that these products are being used, so be sure to check with your carrier for coverage if you are planning to use HF or ABF.

 

[Earl Weiss]

You have a good point on the MSDS "Right to know" issues. I will need to do more research since IMO there is no direct exposure to the customer.

 

[smokun]

New Exposure Potential?

I wonder if, with customers remaining inside vehicles during the express carwashing process, there is the slight risk of exposure... if the air conditioner is on and the airborne chemical mist is introduced into the passenger cabin.

We know that fragrance can find its way into the vehicle interior while riding through the process. If that, then why not another chemical?

And if the risk to humans exists, then why not the under-hood electronics?

Isn't it time to treat this chemical's use in a carwash environment with the contempt it merits?

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

I believe that Mark is wrong on this. A customer does not have a "right to know" what is being applied to his/her car during the car wash process. Why? Because no such rights have been established. A car is a possesion, like furniture, a home, a pet. I have not heard of any "right" to know exactly what is being used to refinish a peice of furniture, clean a home, or shampoo and groom a pet as long as it does not inflect damage that is CIVIL in recourse. Example; 2-3 days ago I read the the pet food industry settled a huge billion dollar suit over the deaths of pets (ruled property). While very said, it was almost impossible to see that an ingrediant listed (required by law) would harm so many pets. This "right to know" on the label in packaging DID NOT SAVE LIVES of those pets!

Mike's is a well respected car wash and the Dahm family has contributed much over the years to Ft. Wayne (my sister in law went to school with his kids) and he will do the right thing. They have set a standard within our industry! This is more of "got ya" BS news over something that did not cause any injury at Mike's or harm to ANY CAR.

Their exist no "right to know" within our industry.... hell Congress couldn't even pass a "Patient Bill of rights". Why should I think a customer has a right to know what chemical I use to clean his car? There is legal recourse to correct abuses.

 

[briteauto]

With the number of quality washing solutions, applicators and "finish friendly" friciton components we have at our disposal these days, it seems as though HF products should not be necessary to get a clean car. Is it faster and easier - maybe - I don't know for sure, as I have never used it, but having washed vehicles successfully for 25 years, I can say with absoulte certainty, it is not necessary.

Operators who choose to use HF, I am sure are aware of the associated potential dangers and risks and elect to have that elevated concern/care as a trade-off for the cleaning results they feel results from the product.

I am sure that many of us get the job done just as well without HF and with virtually no increase in time/labor or cost. Anything in my back room can come in contact with skin and although it may cause irritation (on some people), if in full concentrate, will certainly not cause irreversible, permanent damage and needs only to be flushed with water. I just do not need that worry.

 

[smokun]

Thorsby Didn't Say Anything Wrong!

I believe that Mark is wrong on this. A customer does not have a "right to know" what is being applied to his/her car during the car wash process. ...

Their exist no "right to know" within our industry.... hell Congress couldn't even pass a "Patient Bill of rights". Why should I think a customer has a right to know what chemical I use to clean his car? There is legal recourse to correct abuses.

Doug...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, thinking that you only got half the story. Everything said was true, politically correct, and understandable. And because Thorsby isn't a director or president of ICA, he couldn't take a position for or against until ICA takes a policy decision.

As for the Dahms, they are very fine people, a credit to our business.

That point made, I do not agree with the use of HF, or placing employees at high risk. And YES, the employer has a responsibility to alert staff of potential risks in the workplace... and have everyone read conspicuously available MSDS sheets. OSHA says they have a right to know and be safeguarded against chemical risks.

I suggest taking the time to go to the TV station's website, watch & listen to the video interview... and gain a better appreciate the conversation in its proper context. Mark Thorsby was simply walking a very thin line, cognizant of the diversified views of his ICA Board of Directors. He did just fine juggling!

We all deal with trade-offs of one kind or another. Our personal character, combined with a firm embrace of the golden rule... is still the best policy.


-Steve

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

I read the entire article Steve. I did not watch the news story. I'm not saying that I agree with using the chemical. I'm stating that there is not a "right", a mandated law or responsibiltiy to inform the client of the use of what our process is. A "right", as we understand it is a Constitutional, legal term.

The process has been correcting itself as others has pointed out because less people have been using it in our industry. Yes it is a dangerous product, but the question is, should the customer know what we use? Unless that posess a dirrect health risk, as demonstrated though legal means (civil litigation), I say no. MSDS sheets are for employees, Fire personal and medical personal in the safe handling and treatment of contamination/risk... not for consumer informaton or advocacy. If the news wants to be a consumer advocate... they should get into a consulting business as such (no offense to you). The news REPORTS news... not invents story about dangers that don't exist at Mike's car wash.

 

[smokun]

You're still misunderstanding it.

Doug...

All I was suggesting is to watch the video to get the right interpretation. You need to HEAR HIS VOICE INFLECTION on the video.

The usage of "right" was in terms of a moral entitlement of fairness. He felt he had the right to know what was happening.

It wasn't a claim of constitutional privilege. It was simply a claim for fairness... that was almost rhetorical. That's all.