Sir Alan slams equal opportunity laws

[Converse34 1]

I'm glad I left, how can he seriously think asking such personal questions is in the best interest of women? I loved his show and had a lot of respect for Sir Alan, but I'm disappointed.

Sir Alan slams equal opportunity laws

Published: Saturday, 9 February 2008, 6:38PM

Business guru Sir Alan Sugar has criticised employment laws for making it more difficult for women to get jobs.

The Apprentice star says equal opportunities rules mean employers are not allowed to ask female candidates if they plan to have children.

Sir Alan, who advises the Government on business issues, claims many firms simply bin women's CVs rather than take the risk of them taking maternity leave.

He said: "If someone comes in to an interview and you think to yourself there is a possibility that this woman might have a child and therefore take time off, it is a bit of a psychological negative thought.

"If they are applying for a position which is very important, then I should think that some employers might think: 'This is a bit risky'.

"They would like to ask the question: 'Are you planning to get married and to have any children?'"

He added: "These laws are counter-productive for women, that's the bottom line."

A spokeswoman for trade union Unison said: "Sir Alan Sugar's comments just show that discrimination against women is alive and well in the UK today.

"Any employer who just dumps a woman's CV in the bin is missing out on a huge pool of talent that would benefit their companies and their customers."

© Independent Television News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.

http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Sir-Alan-...unity-laws.html

[mustang-sally 8]

I totally agree with you.

Women nowadays are much more career motivated.

A lot of women now put off having children until they are well into their 30’s, putting their career first. The average family has dropped in the UK from 2.4 to 1.74 children per woman with a lot of women seeking child care so they can return to work as soon as possible.

Seeing as gender pay is still very unfair in the UK -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7235482.stm

I don’t see how bosses think they will lose out as they appear to be paying women on a whole at a lesser rate than they do men anyway.

I found Sir Alan’s comments very sexist, instead of complaining that managers can’t ask such personal questions, he should be promoting women in the workforce.

Equal opportunities should mean equal opportunities!!!

[Converse34 1]

I am the USC and lived in the UK for 6 years. Right after I completed my MSc, I must have went on 20 job interviews in London, Midlands, and in Greater Manchester. I finally received one job offer and I think back now to the questions that they were allowed to ask me and I'm absolutely stunned. Do you have a bf, do you plan on getting married any time soon, do you want to have children?

Maybe I was just naive at the time and I thought these were more "character" based questions. It wouldn't surprise me if I wasn't progressed further based on my answers to these questions. I finally gave up and came back to the US, 2 job interviews in 2 days, with 2 offers - and no such personal questions. The UK is certainly behind the times on this front.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

The UK is certainly behind the times on this front.

Hmm - I think I agree with you there. I, too, was amazed with questions I'd get asked at interviews. At my last job, only one woman was on the executive team and she got "made redundant" when she was on medical leave for a hysterectomy - nice! Another woman got sacked after she came back from maternity leave. I think she sued, though I don't know what happened to the case.

Mind you, I think the US could make some improvements on this front too, but in my current job about half the executive team are women.

[barrel_roll 0]

Arrogant, rich old man in 'outdated prejudice' shocker.

[Converse34 1]

Mind you, I think the US could make some improvements on this front too, but in my current job about half the executive team are women.

I agree - the US is far from perfect, but at least everyone agrees in principle you aren't supposed to discriminate or at least ask such personal questions. I am very career focused and hope to have children sooner rather than later. I think some women have experienced more discrimination the higher you go and then decide to have children. Once you are up there and already have kids - it seems to be less of a problem.

[truffles 2]

Did I miss something? i read it as Sir Alan is trying to point out the laws are not fair...he is not the enemy ladies - he is simply pointing out what some employers thought processes are...HE IS ON OUR SIDE

[b]He added: "These laws are counter-productive for women, that's the bottom line."[/b]

....and to be fair - i dont know if any of you saw his apprentice programe with the young lady katie Hopkins who when challenged because Sir Alan had a feeling she was going through this for the wrong reasons - his hunch turned out to be correct.

For all the remarks about how bad the UK is dont forget to compare the maternity benefits with those the US.

I agree they shouldnt be asking those questions...and thats is exactly what Sir Alan is saying...

May I politely request you try reading this link...i think it has a better representation

http://news.aol.co.uk/laws-hinder-womens-c...209130809990004

[size=2]The millionaire Apprentice star said managers should be allowed to ask women at interview how they would "cope" with the demands of work and home. Equality campaigners condemned his comments for representing an "outdated stereotype".[/size]

Personally this gives the woman the chance to explain her arrangements which i think is valid - the knee jerkers will say that they dont ask the man that question when interviewing - well maybe that should be changed too -

Edited February 11, 2008 by truffles

[truffles 2]

Or we could simply have the employer not asking about children, the flip side to that would be if the employee doesnt think the employer has any need to know about children, then as and when you have a problem they dont have any need or requirement to offer any solutions ( childcare vouchers, special leave, maternity leave, changing someones schedule to suit family obligations, etc etc) Before anyone points out this now the law and entitlement i understand - but it is a two street -

I worked for a company (in the UK)who bent over backwards to accommodate my female colleagues to the detriment of the ladies who had no children....The prized shift patterns would go to those who pleaded family circumstances - people like me ( i do have a older child) ended up having to take the less desirable shifts....not fair in my opinion ...but perfectly legal. They also get a set amount of days they can take to take care of there child if it is sick ( i know people who took them simply because they were there to be used ), The company would hold a position open for almost a year in case the employee wanted to return to work...but when this person is off with sick child or on Mat leave other people have to cover the workload.

If you want it all....thats fine but at least put yourself in the employers shoes to see there point - i know someone who employed a lady - then she left them in the lurch after a very very short period due to being totally unprepared in her childcare arrangements - and it certainly made it difficult for them to consider another lady...(wether we like it or not most of the time childcare falls to the woman). After all...whose child is this?

[truffles 2]

I am all for bettering equality - but when someone is trying to help like Sir Alan Sugar, by highlighting stuff like this we shouldnt rail on him - he is simply trying to see it all ways round - his words in the article show him expressing a business view but understanding the employee's view....

please understand i mean no offence to anyone but i am passionate about fair ......sometimes we need to look at the issues from a different angle to see the bigger picture

And apologies for the multiple posting rather than one long read - for some reason i couldnt edit my posts

[Converse34 1]

Did I miss something? i read it as Sir Alan is trying to point out the laws are not fair...he is not the enemy ladies - he is simply pointing out what some employers thought processes are...HE IS ON OUR SIDE

No, he is spinning so it LOOKS like he is on our side. See below.

The Apprentice star says equal opportunities rules mean employers are not allowed to ask female candidates if they plan to have children.

"If they are applying for a position which is very important, then I should think that some employers might think: 'This is a bit risky'.

"They would like to ask the question: 'Are you planning to get married and to have any children?'"

For all the remarks about how bad the UK is dont forget to compare the maternity benefits with those the US.

I agree. Maternity benefits in the US are horrendous.

[size=2]The millionaire Apprentice star said managers should be allowed to ask women at interview how they would "cope" with the demands of work and home. Equality campaigners condemned his comments for representing an "outdated stereotype".[/size]

Personally this gives the woman the chance to explain her arrangements which i think is valid - the knee jerkers will say that they dont ask the man that question when interviewing - well maybe that should be changed too -

Why should women have to explain how they would cope?? Do men have to explain how they would "deal" with their wife by working long hours? Absolutely not!!

I worked for a company (in the UK)who bent over backwards to accommodate my female colleagues to the detriment of the ladies who had no children....The prized shift patterns would go to those who pleaded family circumstances - people like me ( i do have a older child) ended up having to take the less desirable shifts....not fair in my opinion

I agree. This is not fair. All they need to say in the interview is this job requires shift work. Is that ok with you? One should also not receive special privileges because they DO have children.

[snowfrostedlashes 0]

Provided employers are very up-front about exactly what is required in a position it shouldn't be a problem, e.g. if a job essentially requires you to work late regularly or to do additional hours this might present a problem to someone with childcare or other commitments. I think it is very important for both employer and employee, regardless of whether children are an issue, to discuss the working hours and to have a contract that details what has been agreed. I know many friends who are part-time workers suddenly being expected to work full-time hours due to staffing shortfalls and then having problems because they are unable to meet the newly imposed hours (they don't get asked).

[britty 1]

I really think that the question of children should not be raised at all in an interview. I have certainly been asked what "my domestic future plans" were in interviews in London, and I have always been very vague with the answer. Here in the US, it is definitely a DON'T GO THERE question so you never have to skirt around the topic anyhow. I think the interviewer should make it clear what the role requires. If this involves lates night, weekends, occasional travel etc, then it is up to the job applicant to decide whether or not that is feasible for them. I have seen women take roles that required extra commitment, only to then want structured work hours, the ability to leave at a moment's notice, and tele-commuting. Most, if not all, of these women were in relationships and it puzzled me why their partners could not take on the childcare arrangements, leaving the woman to carry out the job she promised to do. Everyone knows that occasionally things crop up and we need some flexibility from our employers, but not three times a week !

[Converse34 1]

I really think that the question of children should not be raised at all in an interview. I have certainly been asked what "my domestic future plans" were in interviews in London, and I have always been very vague with the answer. Here in the US, it is definitely a DON'T GO THERE question so you never have to skirt around the topic anyhow. I think the interviewer should make it clear what the role requires. If this involves lates night, weekends, occasional travel etc, then it is up to the job applicant to decide whether or not that is feasible for them.

I agree. Everyone is different and it should not be down to the employer to decide if a person can "cope" with a particular work environment. When a person starts a new job, it is a risk on both sides.

[mustang-sally 8]

I think that the fact that there are so many employee laws in the UK probably make a lot of managers think twice about employing a woman, especially for a small firm or business.

If a woman falls pregnant she is entitled to take paid leave for all her ante-natal appointments. She gets the first 6 weeks of her maternity leave paid at 90% of her regular wage and can take up to a year off, in which time the job must be held open for her when or if she decides to return. The manager/boss has to then find an employee who is willing to work for a limited time of up to a year to cover. I can see how this could be a big problem especially in an area where there is a shortage of skills. Then there’s the potential sickness leave to consider, both before and after the birth.

Some employee laws in the USA do tend to be archaic in comparison, especially the “at-will” laws that some states still support!! Where is the commitment and moral in that? How can someone put their all into a job when they know the managers can let them go for no reason at any time.

I do however think the UK laws go too far the other way, making potential employers think twice about employing someone, whether it be because of gender, race, disability or age. There are too many laws here to support these issues and employers are scared of any repercussions that may occur if there are any problems.

I ran my own business in the UK and know the laws governing employing someone. After re-reading Sir Alan’s points I can see where he is coming from, but things will not change while the laws stand as they do now. Employee laws are what makes an employer not want to take someone on, better to hire someone who they feel safe with than the most suitable candidate for the job.

If a woman is entitled to so many rights then where is the support? Why isn't the government backing up these laws by providing more child care facilities, more benefits for both the employer and employee in all this? It's ok passing these laws but they need to look at all the problems that may occur and provide solutions.

It’s all wrong!!!!

[britty 1]

I think that the fact that there are so many employee laws in the UK probably make a lot of managers think twice about employing a woman, especially for a small firm or business.

If a woman falls pregnant she is entitled to take paid leave for all her ante-natal appointments. She gets the first 6 weeks of her maternity leave paid at 90% of her regular wage and can take up to a year off, in which time the job must be held open for her when or if she decides to return. The manager/boss has to then find an employee who is willing to work for a limited time of up to a year to cover. I can see how this could be a big problem especially in an area where there is a shortage of skills. Then there’s the potential sickness leave to consider, both before and after the birth.

Some employee laws in the USA do tend to be archaic in comparison, especially the “at-will” laws that some states still support!! Where is the commitment and moral in that? How can someone put their all into a job when they know the managers can let them go for no reason at any time.

I do however think the UK laws go too far the other way, making potential employers think twice about employing someone, whether it be because of gender, race, disability or age. There are too many laws here to support these issues and employers are scared of any repercussions that may occur if there are any problems.

I ran my own business in the UK and know the laws governing employing someone. After re-reading Sir Alan’s points I can see where he is coming from, but things will not change while the laws stand as they do now. Employee laws are what makes an employer not want to take someone on, better to hire someone who they feel safe with than the most suitable candidate for the job.

If a woman is entitled to so many rights then where is the support? Why isn't the government backing up these laws by providing more child care facilities, more benefits for both the employer and employee in all this? It's ok passing these laws but they need to look at all the problems that may occur and provide solutions.

It’s all wrong!!!!

The last company I worked for in the UK offered 6 months maternity leave at 90% of salary, and a further 6 months at 50%. You would have to go through hoops to fire anyone (and they really would have had to commit the most heinous of crimes). They offered creche facilities offsite which they paid 50% towards, and of course, women flocked there in their droves. I think its a catch 22 really - if you offer great benefits and are generous in maternity benefits, you will be targeted by hoardes of women who patiently serve out their first 12 months before immediately trying for a baby. If you don't appear to be an avid supporter of your staff planning families, you might not attract too many women.