Sir Alan slams equal opportunity laws

[SMB x2 0]

I must admit, I had no idea young women were asked these sorts of questions in interviews. It does seem a little draconian, although I suppose protagonists on either side will have a long list of pros and cons. It got me thinking though - there was a piece on BBC news a short while back showing how both maternity and paternity leave can be much better on the continent. I don't recall which country it was, but the deal was something like 14 months total paid leave, to be divided between mother and father as it suited them. As such, you'd see a lot of dads at home instead of mums, if that was more useful to their situation.

Assuming I'm recalling this correctly, I wonder if they have the same prejudices there? Arguably, dads could potentially be off for a long time.

Stu

[greeneyedgirlfl 0]

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.

I'm speaking from an American point of view...I also work in a field in which the majority of workers are female, education (strangely enough, though, most of the high paid administrators are men...); I don't have children (nor am I planning to have children), but I often have to cover classes for people who have childcare issues or doctor appointments for children and make lesson plans for substitute teachers when those on maternity leave fail to do so...so I guess things are not that much different over there (except for the fact that only full-time govt. employees get mandated paid 6 weeks of maternity leave)...

[truffles 2]

Did you see post 15 by britty....i suspect maternity benefits are better in the UK...the company i worked also had a similar policy as post number 15 ....not to mention the company holding positions open for a considerable period...when you look at the employment pages in Uk papers there are loads of jobs which are to cover for maternity leave....i havent seen any adverts for jobs here in US where it is cover for maternity leave.

[barrel_roll 0]

Well nobody moves to America for its progressive social policies...

[britty 1]

Did you see post 15 by britty....i suspect maternity benefits are better in the UK...the company i worked also had a similar policy as post number 15 ....not to mention the company holding positions open for a considerable period...when you look at the employment pages in Uk papers there are loads of jobs which are to cover for maternity leave....i havent seen any adverts for jobs here in US where it is cover for maternity leave.

I do know Truffles that certain social housing associations in the UK have been known to hold positions open for up to 2 years for those on maternity leave. Of course the women are paid a much lower percentage of their standard salary, but they are able to take advantage of the ongoing private healthcare, insurance, and wait for it..... are still allowed to accrue paid time off (vacation leave) that they would have been entitled to had they still been working. This means that when they return to work after 2 years, they are entitled to around 60 days paid time off in addition to their 30 days for the year they are returning to work. This is a bit too generous IMO, and needs to be reviewed.

[Converse34 1]

Well nobody moves to America for its progressive social policies...

Agreed!

[chriso21 0]

Look, Alan Sugar is a successful (ruthless) businessman.. it seems to me that he was merely pointing out what happens in businesses in the UK when it comes to hiring women. I really don't see how highlighting the reality of hiring policies in this country can be sexist if he is merely making an honest observation from his vast experience....

Mr Sugar doesn't seem to think that the current employment laws are in the best interest of women, which is probably true if like he said, most female CV's go straight in the bin because of the amount of money it will cost the business if they choose to have a baby. I imagine it would be better for women's careers nationwide to change the amount of paid leave or time off to encourage them to go back to work sooner and cost the business that they work for less.

ultimately this is a socialist vs. capitalist argument, and if you want to have two years off fully paid when you have a child - you can always move to Sweden... you'll also be taxed at 50+ per cent (I believe) though...

[barrel_roll 0]

ultimately this is a socialist vs. capitalist argument, and if you want to have two years off fully paid when you have a child - you can always move to Sweden... you'll also be taxed at 50+ per cent (I believe) though...

When the topic of socialism comes up in America it always amazes me that most working or middle class people mention taxation, as if what they save in tax makes up for the absence of national healthcare, a minimum wage bordering on slavery and appalling social benefit systems. The truth is the only people benefiting from low taxes are the people most deserving of more taxation: the rich.

They never got over McCarthyism.

[Converse34 1]

Mr Sugar doesn't seem to think that the current employment laws are in the best interest of women, which is probably true if like he said, most female CV's go straight in the bin because of the amount of money it will cost the business if they choose to have a baby. I imagine it would be better for women's careers nationwide to change the amount of paid leave or time off to encourage them to go back to work sooner and cost the business that they work for less.

But making these assumptions is wrong. Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to say, well certain minorities are more susceptible to certain diseases and might need time off work, so I won't hirer them either? This can all be avoided by the employer being up front about the requirements and hours of the position, and often times they are not.

I had a job in the UK that I was only told AFTER I started working that it required working 1 in 3 saturdays in addition to the 5 day work week. This was a big deal to me because it took me 2 hrs each way to get there. Had I known this information up front, I probably wouldn't have taken the job, and therefore wouldn't have left after 5 months.

[britty 1]

I agree. If the employer is clear about what the job entails, the onus is on the applicant to decide whether or not a certain job is for them. There shouldn't be an opportunity for any applicant to accept a job and then try to change or dictate its terms and conditions to suit their personal life.

[truffles 2]

Hmmm....doesnt that get covered in a contract? ...most companies have you sign a contract which lays out what the terms and benefits are?

[Converse34 1]

Hmmm....doesnt that get covered in a contract? ...most companies have you sign a contract which lays out what the terms and benefits are?

All employees in the UK are required to have a written contract within 2 months of starting a position. Most contracts I have ever had were very vague and never mentioned required hours. I worked for large multi nationals - so it wasn't as if the company was small.

[britty 1]

Hmmm....doesnt that get covered in a contract? ...most companies have you sign a contract which lays out what the terms and benefits are?

All employees in the UK are required to have a written contract within 2 months of starting a position. Most contracts I have ever had were very vague and never mentioned required hours. I worked for large multi nationals - so it wasn't as if the company was small.

My experience too Converse. Also, regardless of contract, I have seen people accept a position, and within a couple of months, need time off for various things including child care, responsibilities for an elder family member, personal commitments irrelevant to their role, etc. In my experience, this was mainly women, and I think employers were fearful to address the issue, particularly in this pc society.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

My company, a big multi-national, had contracts and made a lot of noise about "flexible working" and "work-life balance" but was very arbitrary in how they administered those policies - it all seemed to come down to how much they liked certain individuals. One woman who had children and kissed a lot of management a$$ was allowed to come and go as she pleased. If she needed something done before leaving at 4pm to pick little Tarquin up from school you had to drop everything to accomodate her because SHE HAD A CHILD. Other women who were less willing to play the game (and it was about that and not how good you were) found themselves being made redudant. In my 6 years there, not one man got made redudant and of the several women who were, all but one had family obligations that prevented them from indulging in the lads culture that greased advancement in the career ranks. That place was an employment tribunal waiting to happen.

[mustang-sally 8]

Hmmm....doesnt that get covered in a contract? ...most companies have you sign a contract which lays out what the terms and benefits are?

All employees in the UK are required to have a written contract within 2 months of starting a position. Most contracts I have ever had were very vague and never mentioned required hours. I worked for large multi nationals - so it wasn't as if the company was small.

I worked in a nursing home owned by a national company. My hours stated on the contract were very cleverly put as minimum hours contracted for. This meant that if they were short staffed they gave me lots of hours but if they didnt need me so much then they could just put me down for minimum hours. I was contracted at the time for 18 hours but remember looking at the rota one time and I had five x 12 hour shifts in a row . They told me it was holiday cover and I was expected to do it. I did work it but told them never again (being the nurse in charge I ended up doing 14 hours on most of the shifts, though only got paid for the 12 hours). Sometimes we do have to stand our ground