Not Going to take it Any More

From:  Glen Moses
            Director of Technical Quality Programs
            Safelite Auto Glass

Date:  December 4, 2000

There comes a time when it’s appropriate to say “enough is enough,” and this is one of those times.  I have tried to ignore most of the ridiculous untruths posted on the internet, but I grow tired of the uninformed trashing Safelite.   This time it concerns Safelite’s installation procedures, and it cannot go unchallenged.

Those who know me are well aware of my standards -  do the job right, and make quality first.  I would not have joined the Safelite team if I had perceived any “cut corners” policy in place.  Truth is, I was favorably impressed with Safelite’s installation policies and commitment to first class adhesive products.

Safelite requires technicians to follow a specific procedure for glass replacement, and backs it with the use of high dollar adhesive products.  That material comes from Sika, a company our industry regards as a premium adhesive supplier.  In fact, last winter Safelite was the industry leader in the use of cold weather two part urethane products, specifying Sika Tack Plus Booster to ensure safe drive away strength for our customers.

One of my first projects at Safelite was to create and implement a “zero tolerance policy” for installations.  In short, technicians enter into a written agreement stating they support the “Pro-Cut” method of installation and will only use Safelite sanctioned adhesive products.  Does this sound like the behavior of a company that does not care about procedures?

This site recently [ contained an anonymous posting of ] a note questioning the appropriateness of the Safelite Pro-Cut installation procedure.  It alleged that somehow Safelite was not complying with the new GM installation policy; the one that disavows their earlier approval of the “short cut” method of installation.  Specifically, on November 27, 2000, 'hinderlands'  authored, “GM Puts It in Writing.”   His comments will appear in Italics.  (The misspellings and grammatical errors are part of the original.)

'hinderlands':  Concerning GM Serivice  bulletin #00-08-48-003; will Safelite change their methods and stop close(Pro-Cut)cutting windshields out of cars now that GM says it is a no no. 

Consider the wording of the bulletin in paragraph 2; "In short, what was originally intended years ago is not how it is applied today."

In his opening statement 'hinderlands' shows his ignorance of the Safelite “Pro-Cut Method.”  He mistakenly assumes that the industry term of “close cutting” is interchangeable with the Safelite term “Pro-Cut.”  It is not.  Pro-Cut is a term that encompasses a specific procedure for performing both “full” and “partial” cut replacements.  The differences are important.

To the industry at large, “close cut” means that the cutout knife cuts the urethane as close to the glass as possible.  It leaves almost all of the old urethane intact on the pinchweld.  The term “close cut” does not even appear in Safelite’s vocabulary because it is not allowed.  Period. 

I suspect that what Hinterland is mistakenly referring to is our procedure called “partial cut.”  At Safelite, a “partial cut” means cutting the urethane as close to the BODY as possible; removing all but 1-2 millimeters of the old adhesive.  This is similar to what the rest of the industry would call a “full cut,” the procedure endorsed by every urethane and car manufacturer I am aware of.

The second, and less used procedure employed by Safelite, is termed “full cut.”   This means removing ALL of the old adhesive right to the pinchweld, and is usually employed when an improper bed of sealant is found;  such as butyl.  To prove my point, here is an excerpt taken directly from our installation agreement signed by all Safelite  technicians:

Professional Cut Installation Method... I understand that I must adhere to the Professional Cut Installation Method (“Pro-Cut”).   Pro-Cut allows the Safelite technician to make a professional assessment of the vehicle and perform either a full-cut or a partial-cut installation based on a variety of vehicle conditions.  Specific guidelines apply when choosing between the full-cut or partial-cut.

                        Full-Cut... I understand that a full-cut installation is the total removal of the existing adhesive material down to the pinchweld.  The pinchweld must be cleaned of all dissimilar products (such as butyl, silicone, polysulfite, etc.)  A full-cut installation must be performed when the windshield has been previously replaced or any one or more of the following pinchweld conditions are present:

• Rust

• Repaint

• Visible damage

• Existing bed of loose, deteriorated, or unknown adhesive

                        Partial-Cut... I understand that a partial-cut installation is the removal or trimming of the urethane bead leaving approximately 1-2 millimeters (1/16" - 1/8") on the pinchweld.  A partial-cut may be performed when both of the following apply:

• The existing bead of urethane is fully bonded to the pinchweld and is in excellent shape, and

• The windshield has not been previously replaced

As you can see, Safelite AutoGlass has in fact required their technicians to perform the very method GM now recommends – recognize as well that Safelite required it years before it became a GM policy!  I would challenge Hinterland to show me any element of Pro Cut that does not follow a proper procedure for a GM vehicle as outlined in the service bulletin.  In fact, I challenge him to point out any element of this Pro Cut policy that is contrary to any credible installation technique recognized by an industry body such as the National Glass Association.

'hinderlands' continues:  So how many windshields are falling out of Safelite cars today, we had another van with windshield falling out, the owner was afraid to drive with the windows rolled down or fear the wind suction would pull the windshield out, 

I realize that many insurance companies read this board, here is a thought, the windshield on the van we fixed today broke in taking it out. The leasing company asked if we were a Safelite affiliate, which we are not. I guess they paid twice to have the same job put in; the point is to the insurance industry, these low ball jobs are now falling out, and will need replaced. You will have to replace them all over again, and if you sue the shop that did the low ball work; low and belong a insurance company will pay that claim as well.

Adhesive failure on the installation encountered by 'hinderlands' could be the result of a number of factors.  Improper urethane application, expired primer, installer error – each or all could be at fault.  I cannot address what caused the actual problem, because I was unable to examine it. However, I can assure him it would not be a result of a properly executed Pro-Cut replacement procedure.  Still, I can’t help being  intrigued by what I might have found due to the contradictions in 'hinderlands' description.  On one hand he implies that the glass condition was precarious due to faulty installation – stating that it was subject to  “falling out” or being “sucked out” three times… yet he was unable to remove such a fragile bond without breaking the glass. How can this be?

Let me conclude by saying that I am deeply concerned with the safety of any and all Safelite installations. In fact, that is my role at Safelite – to help ensure that every job for every customer is done using a premium adhesive and a procedure that complies with requirements supplied by both the adhesive and car manufacturers.  I am absolutely committed to accepting no less from our associates.  Should anyone have a question regarding our technique, or encounter an improper installation; I invite you to contact me directly.  I would be happy to hear from you.  I will, however, defend with facts any allegations that Safelite somehow endorses a shoddy installation regimen or inferior adhesives.  Our technicians who follow those procedures deserve no less.

Glen Moses

Final note: I find that I would be embarrassed to admit that I was unable to save a glass described as “falling out.” Personally, I would be afraid that it could be interpreted that I was motivated to sell the insurance company another windshield, rather than accept a less profitable “labor only” charge?   Go figure.