• As of January 1, 2018 The brand new logo that was created and released in 2017 will be the only official logo in affect and allowed to be used on any electronic media however, any such media like truck wraps, stationary, and postcards will be grandfathered in. Contributing Members will be allowed to use the UAMCC logo in any advertising. Permission to use the logo otherwise must be in writing. Logos used in electronic formats (ie: Websites, forums, etc.) must be linked back to the member’s profile in the UAMCC directory. Contributing Members are members that are paid and current with their dues. Please contact info@uamcc.org with any questions.

Will Sqeegeeology be killed by Brushology?

As a squeegeeoligist, it has taken me some time to succumb to the WFP revolution. A friend of mine built his own in 2003. He received poor information to create his "recipe." I will not go into details, but lets just say the system screamed, 'CONTAMINATION!' It is not because of belief, it is because of past experience that deterred me. Because of not understanding that our profession is a science. I did not realize I was nearly giving up my science. As a window cleaning scientist, that is actually the reason why we call it squeegeeology, the goal is to brainstorm, study, question, and evolve. A friends inability to be a true squeegeeoligist made me an unbeliever, and at the same time halted my development. This also adversely affected other aspects of my business, but that is for another forum.

In my hometown we had a window cleaner that came through and washed all the store fronts. I would watch him use a wooden stick, wooden ladders, and a squeegee. He served many small communities, most of the cities and towns were 5,000 or less, and still are to this day. But, he was the only one. Why? He was cheap and when he started he was ahead of the curve. His largest expense was his vehicle. He even was rumored to make his own soaps because of allergies. For years he ruled the area. But, like Blockbuster, he eventually failed. Why? He was either to stubborn, unaware, or just broke. He was not a scientist, nor visionary of his profession. He was an opportunist.

Keep in mind, with the aid of a few close friends and professionals, This Squeegeeoligist (me), will be migrating to a WFP system this spring. Will I become a "John McClane" like so many of you. The answer to that is a resounding No! At least not at this time, with Wisconsin winters being unpredictable. The death of the squeegee may only come when we can teleport dirt off windows.

The whole point to this message, window cleaner or not, do not give up in your science. You may have to change your studies, but not your profession.

So until next time keep your channels stiff, and rubbers hole free.

Tony Evans

Board of Director
I reread this post in view of discussions (some would say arguments) over which system set up is better for window cleaners. While I agree with Nick that we should never give up our science there does come a point where you have to balance common sense into it as well. Sometimes simpler is better but as with anything else there is a time factor that can be increased by a system that is too simple.
If I need to change out filters too often then that time has to come from somewhere. If you are preparing to enter the Brushology phase of your business then take the time to look not only at the expense, and science of that investment but also at the time involved in maintenance in the real world.