Boy, it's a good thing they're friends! I'd hate to see what font size the Capitain would use otherwise. Beside the fact that I don't understand how most of you's are assigning points in this bout, the irony of our super-modren technological communication should not be minimized. Given the different time zones and my ignorance, I'm not sure exactly who wrote what, when, but I got Wim's rather conciliatory-toned post shortly before Joe's upper case screamer. If Wim doesn't agree that he has, in fact, made an ass of himself, royal or otherwise, what are his options? It seems a strategic conundrum of the highest order. David Skolnik Hastings on Hudson, NY At 12:26 AM 10/30/2009, you wrote: >STOP IT ALREADY!!!! PLEASE!!!????? WIM...PUT A DAMNED CORK IN IT! YES, >WE'RE FRIENDS, BUT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. YOU HAVE MADE A ROYAL ASS OF YOURSELF, >IMHO! >JOE > >Joe Garrett, R.P.T. (Oregon) >Captain, Tool Police >Squares R I > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <pianotech-request at ptg.org> > > To: <pianotech at ptg.org> > > Date: 10/29/09 6:32:43 PM > > Subject: pianotech Digest, Vol 12, Issue 252 > > > > Send pianotech mailing list submissions to > > pianotech at ptg.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > pianotech-request at ptg.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > pianotech-owner at ptg.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of pianotech digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Fwd: Samick warranty protocol. (Barbara Richmond) > > 2. Re: Fwd: Samick warranty protocol. (Jane Jones) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:18:10 +0000 (UTC) > > From: Barbara Richmond <piano57 at comcast.net> > > To: pianotech at ptg.org > > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Fwd: Samick warranty protocol. > > Message-ID: > > > ><1758463029.2393921256869090792.JavaMail.root at sz0119a.emeryville.ca.mail.co >mcast.net> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Please stop this. > > > > Barbara Richmond, RPT > > near Peoria, Illinois > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: wimblees at aol.com > > To: pianotech at ptg.org > > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:28:25 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central > > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Fwd: Samick warranty protocol. > > > > > > It's a shame that Roger has to resort to lies to get his points across. I >appreciate and commend him that he is standing by Jane. But that doesn't >resolve the issues, or the bad public relations created by this incident. >Please see my responses to what Roger claims are "facts" > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Jolly <roger.j at sasktel.net> > > To: Pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org> > > Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 1:09 pm > > Subject: [pianotech] Fwd: Samick warranty protocol. > > > > > > > > > >I am more than a little disgusted that I am responding to the recent >thread. > > > > > >To be clear to all, I would first come to Jane Jones defense, and state > >publicly that she has followed company policy, and has even bent the rules > >to try and satisfy the individual in question. > > > > > >1. Fact . No pre authorization was either sought or given to this > >individual to do work on our company's behalf. > > > > Fact: If pre-approval was needed, no one, neither Samick nor the dealer, >ever said anything about it, or asked for it, for the first set of invoices >I sent or the second invoice I sent. In fact, for the first invoice, which >was sent to Samick a week before the convention in Grand Rapids, Jane told >me the invoice had been received, processes and a check would be sent >"soon". It still took 3 months to process. If pre-approval was needed, why >wasn't I told about it, then? > > > > > > >2. Fact. We received an invoice for 3hrs labour no description of what > >was done. Just pay me for 3hrs work. We will happily post a copy of the > >invoice since this persons idea of truth is different than ours. > > > > Fact: Along with the 2nd invoice, which was sent in the middle of August, >(which does show "3 hours of work") I sent a detailed letter explaining >what I did. When I asked Jane about this 2nd invoice, she told me she had >not received it. So I sent her a copy of it again, along with another >letter explaining what I did for three hours. I know she got it, because >she responded that she would "personally walk it to accounting" to get >processes. Again no word about getting pre-approval, or that anything was >"missing" from the invoice. > > > > > > >3. Fact. Both Jane Jones and I have received email containing foul and > >abusive language. This is not the way to get problems resolved. True > >professionals do not behave in this manner. > > > > > > Fact: I used one swear word (The BIG one) in my communication with Jane. >(for which I have apologized). I never used a swear word in my >communication with Roger, other that asking him if perhaps he could "kick >some ass" to get me paid. (I won't even respond the profesionalism >comment). > > > > >4. Fact. We have issued a cheque for this unauthorized work, despite the > >abuse we have received. The dealer has been made aware of the problem, > >and will be sending a professional technician to fix the problem. > > > > Fact. The work was "authorized" by the dealer. If this is not how Samick >wants work to be done, then blame the dealer, and ask him to pay the bill. >But don't take it out on the technician. As far as sending another >technician to fix the problem, the fact is that along with the invoice, I >not only explained what I did, but I also specifically asked Jane to ask >Roger to help me solve the problem I was having with this particular piano. >I also asked for his help in a subsequent follow up letter, and in a third >letter sent just a few days ago. As of today, I have yet to hear from >Roger. The fact that Roger has not responded leaves me to believe that he >either doesn't know how to solve the problem, or it's a design fault, which >he is not willing to admit. > > > > As far as the "abuse" Samick has received on this, perhaps I am missing >something here, but when is it "abuse" to ask for payment for services >rendered. If there was a problem with my invoices, or a failure to get >approval for the work done, why didn't ANYONE at Samick contact me? When is >it "abuse" to ask for help from the 'head technician" to solve a problem? >When is it abuse that I brought to everyone attention a problem that has >been talked about in the past by other technicians? From where I am >sitting, it is me who is being abused, and it's the other technicians who >have to wait three months to get paid who are being abused. > > > > Roger, you and I have known each other for a long time. I respect your >technical knowledge, even though you come across rather arrogantly about >it. I'm sorry this issue has gotten out of hand. But I don't' appreciate >being degraded, especially inferring that I am not professional technician. >I work very hard in my craft, and I have a lot of respect from my collogues >and my customers for my honestly and technical knowledge. I hope we can put >this episode behind us, and go on from here. > > > > The information you posted about how to get paid for warrantee work is >greatly appreciated. I am sure all of the techncians who work for Samick >will appreciate it. And please make sure all your dealers are aware of it. > > > > Sincerely > > > > Wim > > > > > > > > >Now to be clear on how we need to do business: > > > > > >1. Warranty repairs should be first reported to the selling dealer, and > >local authorization for the repair is given. An estimate of what the > >charges are going to be should be furnished at the time. > > >2. We accept that not all dealers are cooperative, and we will be happy > >to receive your request directly. We will need the selling dealers name, > >model and ser. number of the unit being worked on. > > >3. We will require an estimate of the cost so we can authorize the > >work. In some cases it is cheaper for us to replace a piano. Re pinning > >for loose tuning pins is an example. We have had estimates as high as > >$4000.00. We are not in the business of paying some one to learn. > > >4. The invoice should include the following: Model, Serial number. Date > >of authorization, Work done, Date of work completed. > > >5. We generally clear all out standing invoices each Friday, unless Jane > >is away, or there is missing information. > > >6. We are more than willing to work with any technician to help our > >dealers and customers. > > >7. We pay a fair hourly amount, that a well trained tech can accomplish >a >given task. > > > > > > > > >Samick has made a major investment in the technical community, and all >we >ask for in return, is some respect and some cooperation. This will >change >if PTG condones the type of action that has been taking place. On a > >personal note, I will have no part of an organization that fosters this > >type of false thread. > > > > > >Yours Respectfully > > >Roger Jolly > > >Director of Product Development. > > >Samick Music Corp. > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: ><http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20091030/8f497687/attachment >-0001.htm> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:25:54 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Jane Jones <jjmusic at bellsouth.net> > > To: pianotech at ptg.org > > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Fwd: Samick warranty protocol. > > Message-ID: <905428.83105.qm at web180712.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > OK, guys?.enough.? As I said before, innuendos and? accusations are not >moving us forward.? Willem, Roger is NOT resorting to lies.? He does not >have to do so.? You stated in your previous post you wanted to get over >this, so why this type of post?? You have attended Roger?s classes.? I hand >out a book at the beginning of the class, and have been giving this book >out for 4 years now.? Please take a look one of the first pages in that >book.? It is the page titled, ?To all Piano Technicians?. I give a brief >outline of warranty procedure, so you haven?t been told?? > > > > We are a small industry.? We are a family. We have to see and deal with >each other sometimes even more than we do our ?blood? families.? I have >been a technician since 1978, and have experienced issues with it taking >longer to get a check sometimes.? It didn?t kill me.? I dealt with it.? >There can always be extenuating circumstances.? I believe I have done >warranty work for every manufacturer and I have always been paid, (and yes, >that includes Samick).? We have warranty protocol just like all >manufacturers.?? If technicians do their part AND if I do my part, AND if >Accounts Payable does their part, you will be paid.? Will I fight for you >if you?re not?? You bet.? > > > > As I told you earlier, if you don?t see a check and it has been a long >time, just call me, or email me.? I?ve been on the other side of this >desk.? That?s why I will always tell technicians that I appreciate what >they do out there, and sincerely mean it.? Let?s focus on sharing >information that will help us all to learn and grow.? This is one of the >greatest industries in the world.? Enjoy it! > > > > Jane > > > > --- On Thu, 10/29/09, wimblees at aol.com <wimblees at aol.com> wrote: > > > > From: wimblees at aol.com <wimblees at aol.com> > > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Fwd: Samick warranty protocol. > > To: pianotech at ptg.org > > Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 8:28 PM > > > > > > > > It's a shame that Roger has to resort to lies to get his points across. I >appreciate and?commend him that he is standing by Jane. But that doesn't >resolve the issues, or the bad public relations created by this incident. >Please see my responses to what Roger claims are "facts" > > > > > > ? > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Roger Jolly <roger.j at sasktel.net> > > > > To: Pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org> > > > > Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 1:09 pm > > > > Subject: [pianotech] Fwd: Samick warranty protocol. > > > > > > > > > > > > >? > > > > >I am more than a little disgusted that I am responding to the recent >thread.? > > > > >? > > > > >To be clear to all, I would first come to Jane Jones defense, and state > >publicly that she has followed company policy, and has even bent the rules > >to try and satisfy the individual in question.? > > > > >? > > > > >1. Fact. No pre authorization was either sought or given to this > >individual to do work on our company's behalf.? > > > > > > ? > > > > > > Fact: If pre-approval was needed, no one, neither Samick nor the dealer, >ever said anything about it, or asked for it, for the first set of invoices >I sent or the second invoice I sent. In fact, for the?first invoice, which >was sent to Samick a week before the convention in Grand Rapids, Jane >told?me the invoice had been received, processes and a check would be sent >"soon". It still took 3 months to process. If pre-approval was needed, why >wasn't I told about it, then? > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > >2. Fact. We received an invoice for 3hrs labour no description of what > >was done. Just pay me for 3hrs work. We will happily post a copy of the > >invoice since this persons idea of truth is different than ours.? > > > > > > ? > > > > > > Fact: ?Along with the 2nd invoice, which was sent in the middle of >August,?(which does?show "3 hours of work") I sent a detailed letter >explaining what I did. When I asked Jane about this 2nd invoice,?she told >me she had not received it.?So I sent her a copy of it again,?along with >another letter explaining what I did for three hours. I know she got it, >because?she responded that she would "personally walk it to accounting" to >get processes.?Again no word about getting pre-approval, or that anything >was "missing" from the invoice. ? > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > >3. Fact. Both Jane Jones and I have received email containing foul and > >abusive language. This is not the way to get problems resolved. True > >professionals do not behave in this manner.? > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > Fact: I used one swear word (The BIG one) in my communication with Jane. >(for which I have apologized). I never used a swear word in my >communication with Roger, other that asking him if perhaps he could "kick >some ass" to get?me paid.?(I won't even respond the profesionalism >comment). > > > > > > ? > > > > > > >4. Fact. We have issued a cheque for this unauthorized work, despite the > >abuse we have received. The dealer has been made aware of the problem, > >and will be sending a professional technician to fix the problem.? > > > > > > ? > > > > > > Fact.?The work was "authorized" by the dealer.?If this is not how Samick >wants work to be done, then blame the dealer, and?ask?him to pay the bill. >But don't take it out on the technician. As far as sending another >technician to fix the problem, the fact is that along with the invoice, I >not only explained what I did, but?I also specifically asked Jane to?ask >Roger to help me?solve the problem I was having with this particular >piano.?I also asked?for his help in a subsequent follow up letter, and in a >third letter sent?just a few days ago.?As of today, I?have yet to hear from >Roger.?The fact that Roger has not responded leaves?me to believe that >he?either doesn't know how to solve the problem, or it's a design fault, >which he is not willing to admit. > > > > > > ? > > > > > > As far as the "abuse" Samick has received on this, perhaps I am missing >something here, but?when is it "abuse" to ask for payment for services >rendered. If there was a?problem with my invoices, or a failure to get >approval for the work done,?why didn't?ANYONE at Samick contact me? When is >it "abuse" to ask for help from the 'head technician" to solve a problem? >When is it abuse that I brought to everyone attention a problem that has >been talked about in the past by other technicians? From where?I am >sitting, it is me who is being abused, and it's the other technicians who >have to wait three months to get paid who are being abused. > > > > > > ? > > > > > > Roger, you and I have known each other for a long time. I respect your >technical knowledge, even though you come across rather arrogantly about >it. I'm sorry this issue has gotten out of hand. But I don't' appreciate >being degraded, especially inferring that I am not professional technician. >I work very hard in my craft, and I have a lot of respect?from my collogues >and my customers for?my honestly and technical knowledge. I hope we can put >this episode behind us, and go on from here. > > > > > > ? > > > > > > The information you posted about how to get paid?for warrantee work is >greatly appreciated. I am sure all of the?techncians who work for Samick >will appreciate it. And please make sure all your dealers are aware of it. > > > > > > ? > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > ? > > > > > > Wim? > > > > > > ? > > > > > > ? > > > > > > ? > > > > >Now to be clear on how we need to do business:? > > > > >? > > > > >1. Warranty repairs should be first reported to the selling dealer, and > >local authorization for the repair is given. An estimate of what the > >charges are going to be should be furnished at the time.? > > > > >2. We accept that not all dealers are cooperative, and we will be happy > >to receive your request directly. We will need the selling dealers name, > >model and ser. number of the unit being worked on.? > > > > >3. We will require an estimate of the cost so we can authorize the > >work. In some cases it is cheaper for us to replace a piano. Re pinning > >for loose tuning pins is an example. We have had estimates as high as > >$4000.00. We are not in the business of paying some one to learn.? > > > > >4. The invoice should include the following: Model, Serial number. Date > >of authorization, Work done, Date of work completed.? > > > > >5. We generally clear all out standing invoices each Friday, unless Jane > >is away, or there is missing information.? > > > > >6. We are more than willing to work with any technician to help our > >dealers and customers.? > > > > >7. We pay a fair hourly amount, that a well trained tech can accomplish >a >given task.? > > > > >? > > > > >? > > > > >Samick has made a major investment in the technical community, and all >we >ask for in return, is some respect and some cooperation. This will >change >if PTG condones the type of action that has been taking place. On a > >personal note, I will have no part of an organization that fosters this > >type of false thread.? > > > > >? > > > > >Yours Respectfully? > > > > >Roger Jolly? > > > > >Director of Product Development.? > > > > >Samick Music Corp.? > > > > >? > > > > >? > > > > ? > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: ><http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20091029/0584e6ce/attachment >.htm> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pianotech mailing list > > pianotech at ptg.org > > http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech > > > > > > End of pianotech Digest, Vol 12, Issue 252 > > ****************************************** > > > > > > -- > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > Checked by AVG. > > Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/09 >6:16 AM
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC