Oh man yur damn right they acknowledge that there is a problem. Thats why they flip the glass so the fish eye aint showing up in their red tape.
It often ends up this way, alternatives are offered up because GANA ups the ante. Realize the sticker is an admission of the defect nothing else. Changing to alternatives is not the answer. The fact is, Dan has won every case he’s been involved in. The liability is put where it belongs, with the manufacturer. If the waiver is so questionable why has Dan been so successful? Why in some cases where there was no waiver the courts will assign partial responsibility to the glass manufacturer?
If more wcers adopt the No waiver, no work attitude the builder has to accept the facts, the product is defective. There are alternatives to tempered such as laminated. No chance of FD there!
Also, let’s not forget that when a builder or his subs get anything on the windows they have in effect violated the warranty. This means he wants you to take away his liability by cleaning this debris off the window and saving his hide. I say if he won’t sign the waiver let him face the music he chose to play!
Hit the nail on the head there my friend!
I think you give GANA more credit than they deserve. The glass manufacturers hold the cards because they have the money. Changing to alternative methods may indeed be the answer if the manufacturers decide to not change their ways. So they admit they have what you guys decide to call a defect. They can call it a limitation and go from there.
Point is: The window cleaning industry is very small in comparison to the glass manufacturing industry. What changes things Tony? Money. Money changes everything and is the catalyst to change. Unfortunately the money is in the manufacturers hands and they can do what they please with it.
How many construction cleans do you do annually? I’m just wondering.
If it were not for GANA’s bulletins we wouldn’t be in this mess. They are the voice for the glass industry.
Alternative methods are the farthest thing from the answer. Just ask Dan if he has the time to use alternatives.
Remember the insurance industry also considers this a defect or they would insure us against it.
If it’s not a defect Dwight, what do you consider it to be?
You’re right about money and by getting the waiver signed and educating homeowners, builders, architects, and of course fellow wcers we are taking money out of the hands of the poor quality fabricators. How? By helping people see they have a choice as to where they get there product. Which would rather have? A product made poorly or the same product made properly? Oh and the cost is the same.
I range between 5-10 each year as I only work for builders who sign the waiver.
On many occasions, I have identified defective glass (due to fabricating debris) to builders and they have successfully had the glass replaced without cost by the supplier(s).
I have faith the glass industry isn’t being held hostage by GANA but rather GANA is influenced by the glass industries bigger companies. I think it more realistic to assume that is the way it goes down but none of us really knows. Whether or not you determine “alternative methods” to be the best solution in time is irrelevant. I think the glass industry has already made up their mind and it is those that clean’s decision on how to approach it. Saying Dan has no time for alternative methods only sez to me that change is not an easy thing to see through. Perhaps an alternative method could result in CC work becoming more lucrative because the labor will take longer.
I think what is wrong with tempered/heat strengthened glass currently is a defect. But I also am in the real that just because Dan Field’s and us believe it, that that is what they have to believe. (they is the glass industry giants) They will do whatever is profitable for their company. Listen, many companies in many industries have cheapened their products over time to save money. Whether or not you or I think it is right has nothing to do with their decision.
What would be your position Tony if all of the major fabricators of glass stepped forward and announced that tempered/heat strenthened glass was from here on out going to have “limitations” that they outlined and then they put together a comprehensive outline of how to clean the glass and handle it so that you do not void your warranty? See at that point your fight is over bro. And I think we’re almost there. The language is already on the labels.
I think it’s a defeatist attitude to say the manufacturer has that much power. The real power is in the hands of the consumer. Continue to educate them (and not cave in to some silly little sticker) about the fact that they have options. If the glass industry does what you suggest I think we could suddenly have a bigger and better ally in this fight - builders and their associations! Remember once something gets on the glass it’s ruined (if you think the sticker holds sway) because some stuff requires either a scraper or chemicals so harsh they could damage the IG seal. That would void the warranty also. Now the builder can’t get anything on the glass and the consumer can’t either or else it’s ruined. An educated builder and consumer base will opt for a different product. That product would and should be laminated glass.
And I think it unrealistic to believe that david can defeat goliath happens in reality very often. Adding in the “consumer” angle doesn’t change a thing.
In a perfect world, everyone and every organization that ever encountered an injustice would rise up and in the end all would result in a righteous scenario where justice prevailed. Unfortunately it rarely goes that way. So you say “defeatest” and I say “realistic.”
Perhaps laminated will be the solution. It would be a solid alternative in my opinion. While I don’t disagree with you in theory. I do however believe the fight is in effect like climbing Mount Everest with ice skates on.
Fair enough, Dwight. I only really concerned w/ helping new wcers get educated so they don’t risk their business. Get the waiver, it works.
Let me ask you a couple of question Dwight. When you say alternatives, what do you mean? What chemicals? How much more would you charge a customer over the already higher CCU prices? (not a number necessarily but a percentage would be fine)
The alternative methods would have to be revealed by the manufacturers. I would think they would have to first find a way to label their windows on the frames and not the window to minimize glass damage for starters. That would eliminate some scraper necessity. Then I would hope for some type of protective covering (already being used on some models) that the glass would ship in and could stay on until the construction process is finished.
The possibility of CCU being more lucrative would be in a scenario where the manufacturers change nothing and we window cleaners are forced to utilize alternative methods to save our ass thus the tedious labor would take longer. That scenario I don’t see happening but if they keep it the way it is, I would think eventually it would lead to that.
BTW, Happy Easter! We went to church this morning and I’ve never seen that many people! Whew! Cars everywhere…we were lucky to get out alive. 
The manufacturers won’t ever endorse a method for cleaning a window. Their stance is and always has been that’s our problem.
The big problem is I always hear guys talk about alternatives but none of them want to say exactly what that entails. What chemicals? Are those chemicals approved by the manufacturers? What are you doing now?
Again the catch is they won’t endorse any method just don’t use the tool that’s been used since the beginning. It’s all smoke and mirrors!
I try to be as green as possible and the scraper is green! Chemicals in heavy doses aren’t!
The way to protect yourself is to get the waiver signed and walk if they won’t sign. Also realize they won’t sign because they know you are relieved of liability once they do.
Saying the manufacturers won’t endorse a method of cleaning a window is distortion of fact Tony. Look at the label I posted in this thread. I have it right here and it tells you how they want their windows cleaned distinctly.
The reason I won’t dictate how (even though I have some methods I would prefer) is because it is not my call to say. It is the manufacturers that decide how you clean their windows.
Example: If your storm cleaning easel has “limitations” that will break parts or cause it to not be effective it would be wise that you make those “limitations” clear to your customers. Every product has limits to usage.
I read the label. Did you use a wfp on them? I’ve seen the pics so I know the answer. Nowhere on the label do I see them talk about using a wfp. I see them recommend water and soap solution. What about guys that use ammonia? The label is full of holes and on there for one reason - to keep the customer from discovering a defective product.
If there was one thing that kept breaking on the easel when someone did something simple like place a window pane on it then I would fix that not put a sticker on it that says warranty voided if glass panes placed on product. I would be in a lot of trouble if I tried to pass off bad manufacturing procedures as a limitation.
We are talking about a defect not a limitation.
Guardian gets it right. That shows it’s possible for others to do it. It’s simple housekeeping procedures that are at fault, nothing more.
I’m talking about what the manufacturer is stati ng, not what I agreed upon in writing with the GC. The manufacturer has a set standard already in place and you are saying they do not. As always everything we did was in writing with the GC or else it would not have been done. (including the usage of the wfp) That is why I lost this recent gig.
In this recent one the windows were in bad shape with paint and mortar and he wouldn’t sign, so I opted out. 2k out the door.
Maybe I misunderstood you, Dwight. I thought what you had been saying was that you wouldn’t violate the label because the manufacturer has the right to place those restrictions on us the wcer, right?
I get the waiver signed because I know the label is bunk! It sounds like you use a waiver, correct?
What I said was they won’t come out w/ definite ways (in print) for dealing w/ construction debris on the window. Of course the information on the label is very limited. Like I pointed out it says nothing about chemicals other than soap (which is a very open ended term) and nothing about wfp’s. It worded so loosely for a reason. To keep them out of the liability loop. I use the waiver (legal in my state) to keep me out of that same loop.
Plus when a builder gets debris on the glass he has ruined any tempered panes in the eyes of the manufacturer. Now he needs us to restore (not clean) the glass. If he wants us to do that and remove his liability by placing it on our backs I say “sorry buddy no dice”.
Show me where I stated I was against a waiver and did not believe that there is defective glass? I think you are twisting things here a bit Tony.
Allow me to clarify once more since your vision is apparently clouded: I am in agreement that a properly written waiver is the only defense a window cleaner has to protect themselves against poor quality tempered/heat strengthened glass. I am in agreement that this could be corrected at the point of fabrication.
What I’m telling you is you could have a signed waiver and still lose a court case and your business. What I’m saying is that what drives the bus in free enterprise is $$$. No one cares about the little guy and that is what we represent in this scenario. I have two builders that are willing to sign the waiver but both have said they fear things could get dicey if they ever end up in court.
So please don’t attempt to portray that a waiver is fullproof. It is not.
Can you give an example of where this happened with a[n attorney-approved] waiver?
In my state the waiver would hold up in court. In California it has been holding up for many years now. If you have a legal waiver you are protected.
If you check I never stated what you believed just the impression you were giving by your comments.
A legal waiver when signed is as foolproof as any contract you may sign. Especially if you educated the person before they signed it.
Courts are a funny animal. Nothing is written in stone. I can neither show an example of where a waiver has won nor where one has lost. I did speak to a person that had settled out of court. That was a win as at least they took a hit and kept moving.
