Definition of Workmanlike

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sheldon Barfuss said:
Where can I find the NEC definition of "Workmanlike
Click to expand...

Workmanlike: adj.

Befitting a skilled artisan or craftsperson; skillfully done.

American Heritage Dictionary.

:smile:
 
From the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents July 2004 Edition I know it does not fomat well from the table

Table 3.2.1 Possibly Unenforceable and Vague Terms
Acceptable
Adequate
Adjacent
Appreciable
Appropriate
Approximate(ly)
Available
Avoid(ed)
Can
Care
Careful(ly)
Consider(ed)(ation)
Could
Desirable
Easy(ily)
Equivalent(ly)
Familiar
Feasible
Few
Frequent(ly)
Firmly
Generally
Good
Lightly
Likely
Legible(y)
Many
May
Maybe
Might
Most(ly)
Near(ly)
Neat(ly)
Normal(ly)
Note
Periodic(ally)
Practical(ly)
Practices
Prefer(red)
Proper(ly)
Ready(ily)
Reasonable(y)
Safe(ly)(ty)
Satisfactory
Secure(ly)
Several
Significant
Similar
Substantial(ly)
Sufficient(ly)
Suitable
Usual(ly)
Workmanlike
 
Last edited:
Sheldon Barfuss said:
I would think they need to give a better definition somewhere in the NEC.
Click to expand...

It is not defined, it is as Roger said, in the eye of the beholder.

It can not be defined and that is exactly the reason it is unenforceable and vague.
 
iwire said:
It is not defined, it is as Roger said, in the eye of the beholder.

It can not be defined and that is exactly the reason it is unenforceable and vague.
Click to expand...

It cannot be defined, yet there is an article stating it shall be...

Call me crazy....

Really go ahead, I don't mind. Neither does my lawyer. ;)
 
frizbeedog said:
It cannot be defined, yet there is an article stating it shall be...

Call me crazy....

Really go ahead, I don't mind. Neither does my lawyer. ;)
Click to expand...

Nope, can't use the "crazy" word, but "drunk" may be in the picture. :wink: :grin:

Roger
 
frizbeedog said:
It cannot be defined, yet there is an article stating it shall be...

Call me crazy....

Really go ahead, I don't mind. Neither does my lawyer. ;)
Click to expand...


I would guess it is up to the AHJ to make that call.


Disclaimer:

I'm referring to workmanlike, not you being crazy.;)
 
IMO an inspector citing only 110.12 is on shaky ground if the EC decides to really push the issue.

If there is really a safety issue some other code section should be applicable.
 
Consider this:

A NM cable is installed all twisted up, but properly supported.

An EMT is is installed crooked, but properly supported.

Both could be considered poor workmanship, but neither is unsafe. An inspector might not like how they look, but I don't think he could fail the job.
 
Workmanship much like

Pornography and good looking women I know it/them when I see it.

You get 3 electricians in a room and there will be 4 different definitions for GOOD workmanship. Me I might use a rigid coupling with 2 chase nipples for a raceway between panels, others might not. Had an engineer tell me only a poor electrician would install outlets ground down. And we all know where this leads.
 
The AHJ shall or shall not decide if the term workmanlike shall or shall not be a Possibly Unenforceable and Vague Term as stated in the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents July 2004 Edition.
 
Mr.Sparkle said:
The AHJ shall or shall not decide if the term workmanlike shall or shall not be a Possibly Unenforceable and Vague Term as stated in the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents July 2004 Edition.
Click to expand...

Actually if an EC was to push it, the courts would decide.

Given the language in 90.1 I think it would be a tough sell to say the NECs job is 'neatness'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top