I had two panels bigger than the largest planer I could use for free, so I
paid a lumberyard $20 to sand them to 3/4". I have bought about $1500 of
wood from them in the last 8 months.
When I went to use them I found one didn't lay flush with the 3/4" frame it
was next to. Measuring it, I found it was 0.02" oversized. (The other one
is probably oversized also, but since it is not next to anything, it doesn't
really matter.)
I took it back to the lumberyard, a half hour drive. They said their DC was
down, but they would do it and call me when it was ready.
A week later I called them. It was done, they just hadn't called me. At
this point I was a bit angry; not only had they done it wrong the first
time, necessitating two extra drives out there, but then they don't even
bother to call me.
When I picked up they tried to charge me again for the work.
Was I justified in refusing to pay? It seems to me that 3/4" is 0.750", not
0.770", and it should have been done right the first time. Am I
over-reacting?
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Was I justified in refusing to pay? It seems to me that 3/4" is 0.750",
not
> 0.770", and it should have been done right the first time. Am I
> over-reacting?
>
>
Their initial error was less than 3%, which without a specification is
within normal limits of error. If you had specified say -0 +0.0075, <1%,
they probabbly would have quoted you a higher initial cost. Greater
precision invariably means greater cost.
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Their initial error was less than 3%, which without a specification is
> > within normal limits of error. If you had specified say -0 +0.0075,
<1%,
> > they probabbly would have quoted you a higher initial cost. Greater
> > precision invariably means greater cost.
> >
>
> The wood was initially 13/16, or 0.81. They took it to 0.77" instead of
> 0.75". So their error was about 30%.
> Ever try to put a tongue and groove together that is off by 0.02"? That
is
> not so terribly precise.
> Nor was it cheap; I paid $20 for a job that took less than 10 minutes.
>
> I concede I should have measured it before taking it home the first time,
so
> some of the inconvenience was my fault; but they still would have tried to
> charge me.
>
>
Tolerances/errors are always referenced to the required dimension, in this
case the error is 2.66%.
I am curious if the yard would have been interested in doing the job if you
had specified say 0.75 +- 0.005", calibration on those machines isn't
precise and depends on the grit on the machine.
>
>I had two panels bigger than the largest planer I could use for free, so I
>paid a lumberyard $20 to sand them to 3/4". I have bought about $1500 of
>wood from them in the last 8 months.
>
>When I went to use them I found one didn't lay flush with the 3/4" frame it
>was next to. Measuring it, I found it was 0.02" oversized. (The other one
>is probably oversized also, but since it is not next to anything, it doesn't
>really matter.)
>I took it back to the lumberyard, a half hour drive. They said their DC was
>down, but they would do it and call me when it was ready.
>
>A week later I called them. It was done, they just hadn't called me. At
>this point I was a bit angry; not only had they done it wrong the first
>time, necessitating two extra drives out there, but then they don't even
>bother to call me.
>
>When I picked up they tried to charge me again for the work.
>
>Was I justified in refusing to pay? It seems to me that 3/4" is 0.750", not
>0.770", and it should have been done right the first time. Am I
>over-reacting?
>
>
Most tapes, and even many machinist's rules, don't read in 64ths of an inch, so
it's hard to understand how you measured the wood. Or expected the lumberyard
to. And did you ever try to read the thickness of a piece of wood to a 64th
with a tape or a rule?
Oh, wait, you used a micrometer or a set of vernier or dial calipers. Did you
expect them to do the same? That's not woodworking, it's metalworking.
If you wanted the pieces to match within .02", there's an easy way to do it.
Woodworkers do it all the time. You just run all of the pieces - panels and
frame pieces - through the planer or sander at one setting.
You asked them to sand thepieces to 3/4". They did, within normal woodworking
tolerances. Try matching up two 3/4" planed boards of two different species,
or from two different lots. You'll probably find much more variation than
.02". I'd bet on it.
I probably wouldn't have charged you for the second pass. On the other hand I
might not have run them a second time - I just might have explained to you that
you were asking for something that a normal mill would not do, and handed you
back your first $20. And explained to you that if you really wanted all the
pieces to match that closely, you had to bring them all in and run them
together. Again, they didn't do anything wrong the first time. You were angry
because of the driving - hardly their fault.
Taking off an extra .02" with a scraper would have been a few minutes work.
Get some opinions from a few more millwork companies. Tell them you need some
thickness planing or sanding done, and that you'll be in with your micrometer
to check their results. Expect a few laughs.
Again, I'd probably have refunded your money or done the second pass free. On
the other hand, they just may have been thinking "What if I end up at .74" by
his micrometer? Will he expect me to replace his panels? No thanks..."
Just my opinion, though. I work both wood and metal. Metal often to .001",
very occasionally to .0001". But not wood.
John Martin
"JMartin957" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> Most tapes, and even many machinist's rules, don't read in 64ths of an
inch,
If he was using something that was graduated in 64ths, how could he say with
any certainty that it measured .770 (1/64=.0156)?
> it's hard to understand how you measured the wood.
Probably with calipers. They are becomming very common in woodshops, both
home and professional.
>Or expected the lumberyard
> to.
See above.
>And did you ever try to read the thickness of a piece of wood to a 64th
> with a tape or a rule?
Don't know about him but I have. I'll garantee my measurements to +/-.003.
>
> Oh, wait, you used a micrometer or a set of vernier or dial calipers. Did
you
> expect them to do the same?
Yes.
>That's not woodworking, it's metalworking.
No. See above. Hobbiest woodworkers tend to get very hung up on doing things
the way they did 100 years ago saying that that was real quality.
Professionals take advantage of modern technology like anyone else.
>
> If you wanted the pieces to match within .02", there's an easy way to do
it.
> Woodworkers do it all the time. You just run all of the pieces - panels
and
> frame pieces - through the planer or sander at one setting.
>
> You asked them to sand thepieces to 3/4". They did, within normal
woodworking
> tolerances.
No. For work of this kind, within a 1/64 would generally be considered max
deviation. They didn't make that.
Try matching up two 3/4" planed boards of two different species,
> or from two different lots. You'll probably find much more variation than
> .02". I'd bet on it.
Out of the mill, I'm sure you would. They are not concerned with final use.
>
>
>>And did you ever try to read the thickness of a piece of wood to a 64th
>> with a tape or a rule?
>
>Don't know about him but I have. I'll garantee my measurements to +/-.003.
>>
>> Oh, wait, you used a micrometer or a set of vernier or dial calipers. Did
>you
>> expect them to do the same?
>
>Yes.
>
>>That's not woodworking, it's metalworking.
>
>No. See above. Hobbiest woodworkers tend to get very hung up on doing things
>the way they did 100 years ago saying that that was real quality.
>Professionals take advantage of modern technology like anyone else.
>>
>> If you wanted the pieces to match within .02", there's an easy way to do
>it.
>> Woodworkers do it all the time. You just run all of the pieces - panels
>and
>> frame pieces - through the planer or sander at one setting.
>>
>> You asked them to sand thepieces to 3/4". They did, within normal
>woodworking
>> tolerances.
>
>No. For work of this kind, within a 1/64 would generally be considered max
>deviation. They didn't make that.
>
> Try matching up two 3/4" planed boards of two different species,
>> or from two different lots. You'll probably find much more variation than
>> .02". I'd bet on it.
>
>Out of the mill, I'm sure you would. They are not concerned with final use.
>>
>
I'm afraid I don't understand. You can measure the thickness of a piece of
wood with a tape or rule not just to within a 64th, but to .003"?
If someone asks you to to thickness some wood for them, will it be within
.003"? Or a 64th?
Let's just say for the sake of argument that 1/64" is the maximum tolerance
allowable on thickness planing or sanding. His frame pieces could have been as
small as .734". His panels could have been as large as .766". Both in
tolerance, but a difference of .032" rather than the .020" he was complaining
about. And we don't even know what thickness his frame pieces were - he said
they were 3/4". He never said he measured them to .750".
You're right, woodworking has changed quite a bit in the last 100 years. But
thickness planers were capable of just as much accuracy as they are today, even
without digital readouts. Measuring tools were capable of that accuracy as
well.
There's another thing that hasn't changed in that 100 years, and that is wood.
It still moves with humidity changes, and that is one reason that woodworking
is not done to thousandths of an inch. But the real reason is that it just
plain doesn't need to be held to that accuracy. Working to tighter tolerances
than are demanded by the plans might make you feel good, but an employee who
does so is costing his company money.
I can't tell you what the standard tolerance is in the woodworking industry for
thickness planing or sanding, because I've never seen one. I'm not sure such a
thing exists. Individual customers can certainly request that their work be
done to any tolerance they want, and that's fine. But he never did any such
thing.
I mentioned that I do metalwork as well as wood, and that the metalwork is
occasionally to tolerances in ten thousandths. Only where it's really needed,
such as in bearing fits.
You'll agree that metal is generally supplied to tighter tolerances than wood
is, I'm sure. Just for the hell of it, what do you think the tolerance for a
1" thick cold rolled high carbon steel flat might be? Well, for one steel
manufacturer whose catalog I happen to have in front of me, it's plus or minus
.01". Not that much less than the 64th you think the wood thickness should be
held to.
Again, if he wants the frame and panel pieces to match, he should have run them
together. Or fiddled with them himself until they matched. Or he could have
specified ahead of time to the mill that the piece had to be exactly a certain
size. Within a certain tolerance. To tell the mill that he just wanted it
sanded to 3/4" wasn't enough.
But that is just my opinion, isn't it?
John Martin
on my rulers, .003 isn't 1/2 of a 32nd, Barry. :)
dave
B a r r y wrote:
> On 09 Apr 2004 01:50:34 GMT, [email protected] (JMartin957) wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm afraid I don't understand. You can measure the thickness of a piece of
>>wood with a tape or rule not just to within a 64th, but to .003"?
>>
>
>
>
> Sure you can! It's 1/2 a 32nd! <G> That's actually not that hard to
> see on many good rulers.
>
> Barry
"JMartin957" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand. You can measure the thickness of a piece
of
> wood with a tape or rule not just to within a 64th, but to .003"?
Yes.
>
> If someone asks you to to thickness some wood for them, will it be within
> .003"? Or a 64th?
Within 1/128. 1/64 is excesive.
>
> Let's just say for the sake of argument that 1/64" is the maximum
tolerance
> allowable on thickness planing or sanding. His frame pieces could have
been as
> small as .734". His panels could have been as large as .766". Both in
> tolerance, but a difference of .032" rather than the .020" he was
complaining
> about.
Learn the difference between bidirectional an unidirectional tolerence.
Apparently, you don't know. 770 would have been fine if he had specified
49/64 but he specifed 3/4. Any cabinet maker I have ever known would call a
measurement to the nearest 64th. In this case, the man asked for 3/4 and got
49/64.
And we don't even know what thickness his frame pieces were - he said
> they were 3/4". He never said he measured them to .750".
That's irrelevent.
>
> >
> There's another thing that hasn't changed in that 100 years, and that is
wood.
> It still moves with humidity changes,
It's not going to change that much in a short period of time. They cut it
wrong.
and that is one reason that woodworking
> is not done to thousandths of an inch.
Just becase slop work is acceptable to you, don't assume it is for everyone.
> But the real reason is that it just
> plain doesn't need to be held to that accuracy.
See above.
>Working to tighter tolerances
> than are demanded by the plans might make you feel good, but an employee
who
> does so is costing his company money.
Again, irrelevent to the subject at hand.
> I mentioned that I do metalwork as well as wood, and that the metalwork is
> occasionally to tolerances in ten thousandths.
So do I. 8 to ten hours a day, 5 to 6 days a week. Fifteen years so far.
> You'll agree that metal is generally supplied to tighter tolerances than
wood
> is, I'm sure.
Don't count on it unless specifed.
Just for the hell of it, what do you think the tolerance for a
> 1" thick cold rolled high carbon steel flat might be? Well, for one steel
> manufacturer whose catalog I happen to have in front of me, it's plus or
minus
> .01".
See above.
Or he could have
> specified ahead of time to the mill that the piece had to be exactly a
certain
> size. Within a certain tolerance. To tell the mill that he just wanted
it
> sanded to 3/4" wasn't enough.
If he wanted a very good fit, he should have specifeied but in any case, it
should have been closer than what it was.
>
>> I'm afraid I don't understand. You can measure the thickness of a piece
>of
>> wood with a tape or rule not just to within a 64th, but to .003"?
>
>Yes.
>
>>
>> If someone asks you to to thickness some wood for them, will it be within
>> .003"? Or a 64th?
>Within 1/128. 1/64 is excesive.
>>
>> Let's just say for the sake of argument that 1/64" is the maximum
>tolerance
>> allowable on thickness planing or sanding. His frame pieces could have
>been as
>> small as .734". His panels could have been as large as .766". Both in
>> tolerance, but a difference of .032" rather than the .020" he was
>complaining
>> about.
>
>Learn the difference between bidirectional an unidirectional tolerence.
>Apparently, you don't know. 770 would have been fine if he had specified
>49/64 but he specifed 3/4. Any cabinet maker I have ever known would call a
>measurement to the nearest 64th. In this case, the man asked for 3/4 and got
>49/64.
>
>
>
>And we don't even know what thickness his frame pieces were - he said
>> they were 3/4". He never said he measured them to .750".
>
>That's irrelevent.
>>
>> >
>> There's another thing that hasn't changed in that 100 years, and that is
>wood.
>> It still moves with humidity changes,
>
>It's not going to change that much in a short period of time. They cut it
>wrong.
>
>and that is one reason that woodworking
>> is not done to thousandths of an inch.
>
>Just becase slop work is acceptable to you, don't assume it is for everyone.
>
>
>
>> But the real reason is that it just
>> plain doesn't need to be held to that accuracy.
>
>See above.
>
> >Working to tighter tolerances
>> than are demanded by the plans might make you feel good, but an employee
>who
>> does so is costing his company money.
>
>Again, irrelevent to the subject at hand.
>
>> I mentioned that I do metalwork as well as wood, and that the metalwork is
>> occasionally to tolerances in ten thousandths.
>
>So do I. 8 to ten hours a day, 5 to 6 days a week. Fifteen years so far.
>
>
>> You'll agree that metal is generally supplied to tighter tolerances than
>wood
>> is, I'm sure.
>
>Don't count on it unless specifed.
>
> Just for the hell of it, what do you think the tolerance for a
>> 1" thick cold rolled high carbon steel flat might be? Well, for one steel
>> manufacturer whose catalog I happen to have in front of me, it's plus or
>minus
>> .01".
>
>See above.
>
> Or he could have
>> specified ahead of time to the mill that the piece had to be exactly a
>certain
>> size. Within a certain tolerance. To tell the mill that he just wanted
>it
>> sanded to 3/4" wasn't enough.
>
>If he wanted a very good fit, he should have specifeied but in any case, it
>should have been closer than what it was.
>
So, you can measure the thickness of a piece of wood with a ruler to within
.003"? Please tell us exactly how you do that, so that we can all throw away
our calipers and micrometers. Certainly don't need them for woodwork.
All the cabinetmakers you know work to a 64th, but you consider that excessive
and work to a 128th. I guess you consider them a real bunch of slobs.
Bidirectional vs. unidirectional tolerence? I guess maybe you're referring to
bilateral vs. unilateral tolerance. And yes, I know exactly what it is. Are
you trying to say that blateral tolerance is unacceptable when planing wood, so
that the 3/4" piece should really be 3/4" minus 0 plus 1/64th? Or, to your
higher standards, 3/4" minus 0 plus 1/128th?
I'm glad to hear that working to tighter tolerances than are called for is
irrelevant. You say you're a machinist. Tell me, when you get an order for a
part that has to be turned to plus or minus .002", and you spend an extra hour
getting it to plus or minus .0002", how do you explain that extra time to your
employer? If you want to do it on your own, that's fine. But remember, we're
talking here about a commercial millwork operation.
"Don't count on it unless specifed." Your words. Sounds like what you're
saying here is that metalwork, unless a specific tolerance is agreed upon
beforehand, will be supplied to whatever tolerance the producer deems
appropriate. Which I absolutely agree with, because it is absolutely true.
Now, explain to me just how it is different for woodworking. Remember, the guy
gave them no tolerances beforehand.
John Martin
Grab your scale and look at it. Think about what you just said.
"B a r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 09 Apr 2004 01:50:34 GMT, [email protected] (JMartin957) wrote:
>
>
> >I'm afraid I don't understand. You can measure the thickness of a piece
of
> >wood with a tape or rule not just to within a 64th, but to .003"?
> >
>
>
> Sure you can! It's 1/2 a 32nd! <G> That's actually not that hard to
> see on many good rulers.
>
> Barry
On 09 Apr 2004 01:50:34 GMT, [email protected] (JMartin957) wrote:
>I'm afraid I don't understand. You can measure the thickness of a piece of
>wood with a tape or rule not just to within a 64th, but to .003"?
>
Sure you can! It's 1/2 a 32nd! <G> That's actually not that hard to
see on many good rulers.
Barry
>
>
>>I'm afraid I don't understand. You can measure the thickness of a piece of
>>wood with a tape or rule not just to within a 64th, but to .003"?
>>
>
>
>Sure you can! It's 1/2 a 32nd! <G> That's actually not that hard to
>see on many good rulers.
>
>Barry
>
Half a 32nd is a 64th. But .003" is actually slightly less than one-tenth of a
32nd. That's a whole 'nother ball game.
John Martin
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:01:18 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Grab your scale and look at it. Think about what you just said.
Oops! Missed a zero!
I'm thinking .031m not .003! <G>
Neeeevermind...
Barry
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Yes, that is cheap. Stop by my shop and you will pay a minmum of $100.
> Machines run at $200/hour plus material. That 10 minutes was the machine
> time I'd bet. Not the time you took in the office, taking the part to the
> shop, bringing it back to you etc. Today, cheap labor is $50 an hour with a
> minimum of 1 hour. Skilled labor is $70 to $100, professional $150 to $250.
Hmm...I wonder how much Conn. teachers pull in by the hour, and
whether that is considered less than skilled or professional. <big
grin>
H, who is not trying to reopen what was probably a silly
misunderstanding, but couldn't resist. I do enjoy most of your posts.
>Today, cheap labor is $50 an hour with a
>> minimum of 1 hour. Skilled labor is $70 to $100, professional $150 to
>$250.
>
>Hmm...I wonder how much Conn. teachers pull in by the hour, and
>whether that is considered less than skilled or professional.
>
>H, who is not trying to reopen what was probably a silly
>misunderstanding, but couldn't resist. I do enjoy most of your posts.
Well, if you factor in all benefits, utilities, facility costs, management
costs and all of the other overhead built into the above quoted skilled and
professional labor hourly rates I bet the teacher rate is right up there. In my
district it costs about $11,500 per child for education (this is the cost those
hourly rates would need to cover). Our average class size is about 22. (That is
the class size, not the student/teacher ratio. The student teacher ratio is
about 15 due to all the specials). Thus the classroom teacher with 22 kids at
$11,500 each is "billing" the taxpayer about $250,000 per year. At 176 actual
student days and at about 5.5 instuctional hours per day (or 968 instuctional
or "billable" hours per year, this doesn't include luch or "study halls" just
like the enginner doesn't get to bill his lunch hour) it works out to around
$258 per billable hour. I realize that the teacher clearly doesn't see anything
like $258 per hour worked, but the mechanic, accountant, or the engineer do not
see anything like their billable hourly rate either. They all have to cover
overhead, vacation, training hours and everything else in their billable hourly
rates.
David Hall
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 01:54:23 GMT, McQualude <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Toller" <[email protected]> said:
>
>> Was I justified in refusing to pay? It seems to me that 3/4" is
>> 0.750", not 0.770", and it should have been done right the first
>> time. Am I over-reacting?
>
>I wouldn't pay, but you were irresponsible to not have checked when you
>picked them up.
Only to the extent that you can't expect quality in almost MOST things
in this modern world. You have to check.
Its a shame.
Have a nice week...
Trent
What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> However... in the 20 times I have been there I have only seen one of
their
> machines in use once or twice. So the $20 represents pure profit.
> Their posted rate is $60/hour; I don't actually know how long it took
them,
> I just figured it wouldn't have taken me more than 10 minutes if I were
> doing it on their machine.
It was not pure profit. The guy that did the work earned a wage, even if it
was 1/6 of an hour.
The machine used electricity and you used up some of the consumables. Small
as it is, you used some of the life of the machine. They are paying for the
machine to be there for your convenience also, both in the cost of the
machine and the space it takes up.
That twenty bucks is a little contribution to overhead and maybe a tiny
profit.
Ed
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> When I picked up they tried to charge me again for the work.
>
> Was I justified in refusing to pay? It seems to me that 3/4" is 0.750",
not
> 0.770", and it should have been done right the first time. Am I
> over-reacting?
>
Probably not, but look at the entire picture.
What is the standard tolerance for wood planing? I have no idea, but it
should have been mentioned before they started. Better to be over size and
correctable than under and have a total loss or more difficult fix. Lesson
learned is to check when you pick the work up.
The lack of communications internally is all too common. Yes, I'd be
annoyed also.
Overall, it was a poor experience, but not something I'd hold a grudge
forever. If they are a good supplier otherwise, hold on to them and be
cautions next time around.
Ed
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Their initial error was less than 3%, which without a specification is
> > within normal limits of error. If you had specified say -0 +0.0075,
<1%,
> > they probabbly would have quoted you a higher initial cost. Greater
> > precision invariably means greater cost.
> >
>
> The wood was initially 13/16, or 0.81. They took it to 0.77" instead of
> 0.75". So their error was about 30%.
you should get a job working for politians with a spin like that one <g>
randy
"Toller" <[email protected]> said:
> Was I justified in refusing to pay? It seems to me that 3/4" is
> 0.750", not 0.770", and it should have been done right the first
> time. Am I over-reacting?
I wouldn't pay, but you were irresponsible to not have checked when you
picked them up.
--
McQualude
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The wood was initially 13/16, or 0.81. They took it to 0.77" instead of
> 0.75". So their error was about 30%.
No, you did not tell them how much to take off, you tokd them how much to
leave on. Tolerance remains at 3%. All dimennsions have a plus or minus.
They erred on the plus side, which was god for you.
> Ever try to put a tongue and groove together that is off by 0.02"? That
is
> not so terribly precise.
> Nor was it cheap; I paid $20 for a job that took less than 10 minutes.
Yes, that is cheap. Stop by my shop and you will pay a minmum of $100.
Machines run at $200/hour plus material. That 10 minutes was the machine
time I'd bet. Not the time you took in the office, taking the part to the
shop, bringing it back to you etc. Today, cheap labor is $50 an hour with a
minimum of 1 hour. Skilled labor is $70 to $100, professional $150 to $250.
> I concede I should have measured it before taking it home the first time,
so
> some of the inconvenience was my fault; but they still would have tried to
> charge me.
You don't know that. Chances are right on the spot they would have just
fixed it and all would be happy.
We do things for customers at no charge at times because the expense of
billing is more than the cost of the operation. There is a goodwill factor
also. Another consideration, was the person that wanted to charge you aware
that it was a fix, not a first time job?
Ed
im gonna address this from the standpont of you, standing in the store,
being asked to pay again. i realize you already handled it.
well, this is gonna be a tough one especially if you didnt specify a
tolerance you needed it done to. i wasnt there and dont know exactly what
was said, but my local lumber yard (and most i have seen) makes a point of
saying that if they will cut wood, they dont guarantee its accuracy to any
degree and pretty much tell you to have them cut it long. i realize this
also isnt quite the same as what you had done.
.02 (thats 1/50 of an inch) is acceptable for many things so i dont think
they are completely unreasonable in assuming that was close enough if
tolerance was never mentioned. but if anything was said about tolerance, i
would expect them to fix it for free, absolutely. my best advice would be
to talk to the owner himself and see what he might do. owners realize the
potential loss of revenue by pissing off a customer and are generally more
likely to make allowances.
so to answer your question, i would probably argue, pay if necessary
(swearing and cursing the whole time), and re-evaluate that store in the
future. i would EXPECT that if i talked to the right person, that they
would gladly run it through a couple more times to fit your needs because
they view me as a valued customer, but times are a changin...
i feel your pain. its hard to get decent service these days.
randy
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I had two panels bigger than the largest planer I could use for free, so I
> paid a lumberyard $20 to sand them to 3/4". I have bought about $1500 of
> wood from them in the last 8 months.
>
> When I went to use them I found one didn't lay flush with the 3/4" frame
it
> was next to. Measuring it, I found it was 0.02" oversized. (The other
one
> is probably oversized also, but since it is not next to anything, it
doesn't
> really matter.)
> I took it back to the lumberyard, a half hour drive. They said their DC
was
> down, but they would do it and call me when it was ready.
>
> A week later I called them. It was done, they just hadn't called me. At
> this point I was a bit angry; not only had they done it wrong the first
> time, necessitating two extra drives out there, but then they don't even
> bother to call me.
>
> When I picked up they tried to charge me again for the work.
>
> Was I justified in refusing to pay? It seems to me that 3/4" is 0.750",
not
> 0.770", and it should have been done right the first time. Am I
> over-reacting?
>
>
"Hylourgos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > minimum of 1 hour. Skilled labor is $70 to $100, professional $150 to
$250.
>
> Hmm...I wonder how much Conn. teachers pull in by the hour, and
> whether that is considered less than skilled or professional. <big
> grin>
>
> H, who is not trying to reopen what was probably a silly
> misunderstanding, but couldn't resist. I do enjoy most of your posts.
These are rates charged by the employer, not earned by the employee. Yes, a
teacher would fall into the professional category and if the school board
operated like a business, they should charge in that range if a teacher was
subbed out like a welder or plumber.
CT teachers, though, are some of the highest paid in the country. I know a
couple that were going to retire a few years back but the wages and later
pension benefits went up so high they elected to stay to cash in. One case
in particular though, this was to the detriment of the students. Like every
other occupation, some should not be there.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
> Yes, that is cheap. Stop by my shop and you will pay a minmum of $100.
> Machines run at $200/hour plus material. That 10 minutes was the machine
> time I'd bet. Not the time you took in the office, taking the part to the
> shop, bringing it back to you etc. Today, cheap labor is $50 an hour with
a
> minimum of 1 hour. Skilled labor is $70 to $100, professional $150 to
$250.
For a woodworking shop that is undoubtedly true. I used to run a factory.
When someone came in asking us to plate or mill something small, we simply
declined. It really didn't matter what we charged, it wouldn't have covered
the disruption.
However... in the 20 times I have been there I have only seen one of their
machines in use once or twice. So the $20 represents pure profit.
Their posted rate is $60/hour; I don't actually know how long it took them,
I just figured it wouldn't have taken me more than 10 minutes if I were
doing it on their machine.
> Tolerances/errors are always referenced to the required dimension, in this
> case the error is 2.66%.
> I am curious if the yard would have been interested in doing the job if
you
> had specified say 0.75 +- 0.005", calibration on those machines isn't
> precise and depends on the grit on the machine.
>
The large sander I have used has no calibrations at all. You put the wood
in, and lower it until you hear it sanding. Then you lower it a half a turn
each pass until you have the right thickness.
No problem at all getting to within a few thousandths.
They didn't go beyond the 60 grit they used to cut it.
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Yes, that is cheap. Stop by my shop and you will pay a minmum of $100.
> > Machines run at $200/hour plus material. That 10 minutes was the
machine
> > time I'd bet. Not the time you took in the office, taking the part to
the
> > shop, bringing it back to you etc. Today, cheap labor is $50 an hour
with
> a
> > minimum of 1 hour. Skilled labor is $70 to $100, professional $150 to
> $250.
>
> For a woodworking shop that is undoubtedly true. I used to run a factory.
> When someone came in asking us to plate or mill something small, we simply
> declined. It really didn't matter what we charged, it wouldn't have
covered
> the disruption.
> However... in the 20 times I have been there I have only seen one of
their
> machines in use once or twice. So the $20 represents pure profit.
> Their posted rate is $60/hour; I don't actually know how long it took
them,
> I just figured it wouldn't have taken me more than 10 minutes if I were
> doing it on their machine.
none of this matters anyway. either they or you should have specified the
tolerance. the fact that this wasnt done is/was the crux of the problem.
all else is a result of that not having been done.
randy
> Their initial error was less than 3%, which without a specification is
> within normal limits of error. If you had specified say -0 +0.0075, <1%,
> they probabbly would have quoted you a higher initial cost. Greater
> precision invariably means greater cost.
>
The wood was initially 13/16, or 0.81. They took it to 0.77" instead of
0.75". So their error was about 30%.
Ever try to put a tongue and groove together that is off by 0.02"? That is
not so terribly precise.
Nor was it cheap; I paid $20 for a job that took less than 10 minutes.
I concede I should have measured it before taking it home the first time, so
some of the inconvenience was my fault; but they still would have tried to
charge me.
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:09:20 GMT, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Their initial error was less than 3%, which without a specification is
>> within normal limits of error. If you had specified say -0 +0.0075, <1%,
>> they probabbly would have quoted you a higher initial cost. Greater
>> precision invariably means greater cost.
>>
>
>The wood was initially 13/16, or 0.81. They took it to 0.77" instead of
>0.75". So their error was about 30%.
>Ever try to put a tongue and groove together that is off by 0.02"? That is
>not so terribly precise.
>Nor was it cheap; I paid $20 for a job that took less than 10 minutes.
>
>I concede I should have measured it before taking it home the first time, so
>some of the inconvenience was my fault; but they still would have tried to
>charge me.
>
They did it wrong...pure and simple.
I would have bitched, too.
Ya done good!! lol
P.S. Just be careful who you bitch to...and who you talk to.
Employees usually don't care about the reputation of the company...and
often don't express the true sentiments of management. Make sure you
talk/bitch to someone in authority...someone in management.
Have a nice week...
Trent
What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.