Should the term Good Workmanship in BS7671 and other BS (British Standards) be replaced by something like
Good working practice
After the wording has been agreed upon it could then percolate down to other publications like GN3 (Guidance Note 3)
As always please be polite and respectful in this purely academic debate.
Come on everybody let’s help inspire the future
It's not so easy to update words that are used in legislation, as the use is based on well-established case history. Something the legal community are have a look at...
"quite a few workmen out there that seem to equate "good" or even "best" with "quick & cheap".
Quite so. Far too many at the shallow end of the business.
" £50 for an electrical inspection cert, yes,,, err no I don't really need access to the property, takes about an hour..."
That sort of attitude rather blows a hole in the plans of the great and good, but is very popular as it keeps the lights on at minimal expense. The only mitigation is a well educated customer. Well I won't be recommending them ! But how many less electrically inclined will just smile and pay, not realising it is money for old rope ?
A similar problem arises with work 'to a professional standard' when discussing amateur or DIY work.
If one foolishly attempts to match the standard of a professional who is having a bad day, and is in a hurry to get off home, that so called 'professional standard' may well be worse than that of the conscientious amateur taking more time. Words like 'competent' come to mind, and then are rejected as being already loaded with another meaning.
'With diligence', 'care' and 'regard for good practice' are closer I think to what we are aiming to say...
Mike.
And that is where the legal definition comes in to play to define what is considered "good".
'With diligence', 'care' and 'regard for good practice' are closer I think to what we are aiming to say...
Good choice of words
I suspect both my children, both of whom identify as non-binary, would agree that "workmanship" is now a word by itself, it doesn't have gender significance. Out of purely linguistic interest I will get their opinion next time I have a call with them though. Quite different from Chairman for example which definitely does carry an implication. Or indeed "Workman" by itself.
Personally I think there's plenty of more overt sexism in the engineering industry to root out first before we get to this level...plus we need to be careful that getting unnecessarily pedantic on such points allows others to decry the whole process as "woke nonsense" etc. Pick your battles carefully.
But I totally agree with Andy's points, it doesn't seem a good term to use in a standard, because "who decides what's good". Although it's well intentioned.
I think there is any real need to comment, but I will say this. Be careful what you wish for when it comes to pandering to those who are simply being provocative for the sake of it.. There is already too much of this insidious nonsense in the world.
There is a lot of confusion about the subtle differences between the aspirational and the pragmatic aspects of the value cycle (like the water cycle).
In some ways we do require that we have a "shallow end of the business", just as we need criminals (and parliament to create new laws and new criminals) to extricate some of the deep-end value.
A tricky subject to discuss... (another Critical Theory problem)
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
