The Apprenice is a tv show. Getting pregnant by a fellow contestant when the prize is meant to be getting the job of your dreams, ruins the integrity of the tv show does it not? Who got her pregnant isn't so relevant, no, but surely you must see that this isn't a completely normal situation?
I don't agree with that. She has as much right as any other woman to get pregant regardless of the fact that she is the winner of a tv show.
I don't believe Sir Alan discriminated against her though.
On a legal front, I very much doubt the Apprentice, ultimately an entertainment programme/gameshow, actually qualifies as a standard job interview, and therefore, lots (if not all) normal employment rules don't apply.
The candidates most likely sign away a great deal of their normal rights (eg privacy etc) in their contracts with Talkback Thames. How this relates to statutory anti-discrimination rules and whether they can sign away those rights, I'm not sure. But in relation to the sex discrimination allegations of last year (concerning Katie Hopkins & Kristina and questions about their kids), this was said by the TUC:
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: "The Apprentice is just a show but had last night been a genuine interview, Kristina and Katie could have had real grounds for complaint against Sir Alan.
If we trust the TUC (I guess we can in such matters), Claire would not have grounds for sex discrimination as the process is not a 'genuine' interview.
I don't think Sir Alan discriminated or based his decision on her sex.
Clare was my favourite. But I knew she wouldnt win for the following reasons :
She was too similar to Badger IMO and he didnt like her
Lee fitted the Apprentice, willing to learn etc mould of the Apprentice whereas Clare was more experienced and knew it all, not much left to teach her
Clare had been in boardroom several times and could have been fired after the task when Simon was task manager
Lee had never been in the boardroom
SAS might not have been convinced of Clare's personality transplant being a permanent thing whereas Lee was consistent
Clare might have been too loud for him as he touched on this a few times
Clare had apparantly been offered a job with Karen Brady so had something to fall back on for sure
So nothing to do with sex in my opinion.
Just to re-iterate, I was rooting for Calre all the way but just knew Lee would win :-(
However thats a point for another thread, this one is about the fact that Sir Alan seems to, IMO, have a different set of rules for men and women and thats not allowed in this country
We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.
Out of the 10 Finalists, 6 Have been Women, last night the Best 2 won and it came down to the Best 2 people for the Job.
Out of those 2 Lee was by far the most consistent and that counts when the camera's go away and the real work begins.
Clare was my favourite. But I knew she wouldnt win for the following reasons :
She was too similar to Badger IMO and he didnt like her
I don't think he ever said he didn't like Ruth Badger - he thought she was very good and had a lot of respect for her but she was just not right for him at that time. She has nothing but good things to say about him, is still in contact with him and he has been a sort of mentor to her.
Just because he doesn't pick one of two finalists doesn't mean he doesn't like them.
The Apprenice is a tv show. Getting pregnant by a fellow contestant when the prize is meant to be getting the job of your dreams, ruins the integrity of the tv show does it not? Who got her pregnant isn't so relevant, no, but surely you must see that this isn't a completely normal situation?
Getting pregnant is real life and has nothing to do with a TV programme. The programme had long gone before she was pregnant
Getting pregnant is real life and has nothing to do with a TV programme. The programme had long gone before she was pregnant
Lol, I don't know how to say what I'm saying any clearer.
The show had finished but she was still claiming her "prize" (i.e. working for Sir Alan), she then chose to ditch the job. A job which x amount of candidates had busted a gut to get, a job which a television series had been made around, a job so prestigious well educated people are willing to jump through hoops to get it.
Sir Alan didn't sack Michelle Dewberry, she left of her own accord because she wanted to heighten her media profile. Can you honestly not see that her actions question the integrity of the show and therfore Sir Alan too?
I still say he was well within his rights to feel more than a little bit miffed by her actions.
So Alan MUST give a woman the job alternately or its sexist?
Get out of here! This isn't The X-Factor, Alan has to have this person work for him on a daily basis, it has to be the person he personally want.
And for the recond, the one woman he did hire did a runner on him.
Claire was a great candidate, but Lee has definite qualities and it all came together for him in the final.
No I don't agree that a woman should be given a job or it is sexist.
Claire was clearly a good candidate but Lee was more consistant throughout the series and that is why he won, no sexist intent there.
SAS said Claire can always come to him for advice so he clearly rated her but felt Lee was better for him. Claire will do really well, she said on breakfast TV she already had job offers and had a meeting planned with Karen Brady next week.
It's a tv show, not a normal situation... it will be written into all the candidate contracts that if they lose it is purely at Sir Alan's discretion, in which case it is time for tubby-bye-bye without recrimination.
What is "tubby bye bye" ? Is this a bit sizeist ? :yawn:
Why? He wrote an article several months earlier about how he preferred to give a job to a man over a woman and how he disagreed with employment laws in relation to equality.
This month Sir Alan said that he did not regret having criticised rules that bar employers from asking job applicants if they plan to have children. He said: “I don’t want to be dragged into a debate about stupid EU employment rules. I do what I want in that boardroom and if they [the candidates] don’t like it, they can p*** off.”
There was a tedious situation at a firm I worked for when a woman who had been off work for months on maternity leave returned, and was the only woman in her department not made redundant! Since she had been sitting on her backside at home all that time, one would have thought that her name would have been at the top of the list! It seemed ironic that those in the office who had been beavering away (and doing HER job) were sacked. :eek:
She was eventually made redundant a couple of years later (she had fallen out of favour, due to having too much time off sick)!! :D:D:D Poetic justice, I thought! :rolleyes:
There was a tedious situation at a firm I worked for when a woman who had been off work for months on maternity leave returned, and was the only woman in her department not made redundant! Since she had been sitting on her backside at home all that time, one would have thought that her name would have been at the top of the list! It seemed ironic that those in the office who had been beavering away (and doing HER job) were sacked. :eek:
She was eventually made redundant a couple of years later (she had fallen out of favour, due to having too much time off sick)!! :D:D:D Poetic justice, I thought! :rolleyes:
Employers shouldn't pander to women who become pregnant in the same way they shouldn't treat them less favourably because of it.
She should have been made redundant the same as the others.
Employers shouldn't pander to women who become pregnant in the same way they shouldn't treat them less favourably because of it.
She should have been made redundant the same as the others.
But fair redundancy is never about the person but the role.As in the best person suited for the role. I know it is galling for staff being made redundant but If the company had followed fair practice then the person on maternity would not have been selected as her role was not at risk.
Of course I am going on very little facts here. Unfortuantely, some companies know very little about employment law and are scared stiff to do anything with a pregnant woman. It doesn't mean they cannot lose their jobs it just means they cannot be selected for redundancy because they are pregnant. Big difference!
as a person experienced in such matters, I think you are thin ice.
think about it - would Margaret let them broadcast anything that SAS could be sued for?
somehow, I doubt it.
you're closer to trouble than he is, if you publicly defame him. forum admin folk canm be compelled to reveal the identity of posters, once there is a prima facie case against them.
be smart, don't diss SAS without being VERY sure of your evidence.
What is "tubby bye bye" ? Is this a bit sizeist ? :yawn:
LMAO! Very droll. I presume you're joking.
Since she had been sitting on her backside at home all that time,
I very much doubt that any parent with a young child ''sits on their backside all day", and if that's what you believe, you need to wake up to reality.
I agree with your point about the redundancies entirely though - based purely on what you have stated as I obviously odn't know the details of the case.
Why? He wrote an article several months earlier about how he preferred to give a job to a man over a woman and how he disagreed with employment laws in relation to equality.
This month Sir Alan said that he did not regret having criticised rules that bar employers from asking job applicants if they plan to have children. He said: “I don’t want to be dragged into a debate about stupid EU employment rules. I do what I want in that boardroom and if they [the candidates] don’t like it, they can p*** off.”
So Alan MUST give a woman the job alternately or its sexist?
Get out of here! This isn't The X-Factor, Alan has to have this person work for him on a daily basis, it has to be the person he personally want.
And for the recond, the one woman he did hire did a runner on him.
Claire was a great candidate, but Lee has definite qualities and it all came together for him in the final.
not at all, he is sexist because of his actions and what he has said in the past.
Lol, I don't know how to say what I'm saying any clearer.
The show had finished but she was still claiming her "prize" (i.e. working for Sir Alan), she then chose to ditch the job. A job which x amount of candidates had busted a gut to get, a job which a television series had been made around, a job so prestigious well educated people are willing to jump through hoops to get it.
Sir Alan didn't sack Michelle Dewberry, she left of her own accord because she wanted to heighten her media profile. Can you honestly not see that her actions question the integrity of the show and therfore Sir Alan too?
I still say he was well within his rights to feel more than a little bit miffed by her actions.
You are missing the point, he made his comments before she "left" by that famous footballing term, "mutual consent"
Sir Alan didn't sack Michelle Dewberry, she left of her own accord because she wanted to heighten her media profile. Can you honestly not see that her actions question the integrity of the show and therfore Sir Alan too?
I still say he was well within his rights to feel more than a little bit miffed by her actions.
Do you know what? I think he's got more important things to worry about.
However the events unfolded that caused Michelle to resign, I am fairly certain that Mr Sugar only lost a little sleep over it - and that would have been because of his own misjudgement, rather than her behaviour (which was, incidentally, not questionable- we are all entitled to get pregnant and leave jobs at will. He did not buy her soul). I am also certain that he did not reject Claire on the basis of her sex.
Alan Sugar is a canny, clever man who knows what he wants in his business, and who is likely to stick it. He made a misjudgement with Michelle - but who's to say that Ruth would have stayed longer? This is the nature of GOOD business people. They do not need the job, and their life is to short to spend it pandering to the audience of a TV show!
Comments
I don't agree with that. She has as much right as any other woman to get pregant regardless of the fact that she is the winner of a tv show.
I don't believe Sir Alan discriminated against her though.
I was only defending the fact that someone said he was miffed and I said he had every right to be!
As far as I was aware she left off her own back after just a few months because of a conflict of interests.
I think we're barking up different trees :rolleyes:
You're right.
I heard that she left to progress he interests elsewhere too, for which he had every right to be miffed.
The candidates most likely sign away a great deal of their normal rights (eg privacy etc) in their contracts with Talkback Thames. How this relates to statutory anti-discrimination rules and whether they can sign away those rights, I'm not sure. But in relation to the sex discrimination allegations of last year (concerning Katie Hopkins & Kristina and questions about their kids), this was said by the TUC:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/sugar-stands-accused-of-sexism-after-apprentice-quits-452267.html
If we trust the TUC (I guess we can in such matters), Claire would not have grounds for sex discrimination as the process is not a 'genuine' interview.
I don't think Sir Alan discriminated or based his decision on her sex.
She was too similar to Badger IMO and he didnt like her
Lee fitted the Apprentice, willing to learn etc mould of the Apprentice whereas Clare was more experienced and knew it all, not much left to teach her
Clare had been in boardroom several times and could have been fired after the task when Simon was task manager
Lee had never been in the boardroom
SAS might not have been convinced of Clare's personality transplant being a permanent thing whereas Lee was consistent
Clare might have been too loud for him as he touched on this a few times
Clare had apparantly been offered a job with Karen Brady so had something to fall back on for sure
So nothing to do with sex in my opinion.
Just to re-iterate, I was rooting for Calre all the way but just knew Lee would win :-(
I doubt Margaret would agree.
Out of the 10 Finalists, 6 Have been Women, last night the Best 2 won and it came down to the Best 2 people for the Job.
Out of those 2 Lee was by far the most consistent and that counts when the camera's go away and the real work begins.
I don't think he ever said he didn't like Ruth Badger - he thought she was very good and had a lot of respect for her but she was just not right for him at that time. She has nothing but good things to say about him, is still in contact with him and he has been a sort of mentor to her.
Just because he doesn't pick one of two finalists doesn't mean he doesn't like them.
Getting pregnant is real life and has nothing to do with a TV programme. The programme had long gone before she was pregnant
fair enough. However by saying what he has in the past has left him very open to the charge
Get out of here! This isn't The X-Factor, Alan has to have this person work for him on a daily basis, it has to be the person he personally want.
And for the recond, the one woman he did hire did a runner on him.
Claire was a great candidate, but Lee has definite qualities and it all came together for him in the final.
Lol, I don't know how to say what I'm saying any clearer.
The show had finished but she was still claiming her "prize" (i.e. working for Sir Alan), she then chose to ditch the job. A job which x amount of candidates had busted a gut to get, a job which a television series had been made around, a job so prestigious well educated people are willing to jump through hoops to get it.
Sir Alan didn't sack Michelle Dewberry, she left of her own accord because she wanted to heighten her media profile. Can you honestly not see that her actions question the integrity of the show and therfore Sir Alan too?
I still say he was well within his rights to feel more than a little bit miffed by her actions.
No I don't agree that a woman should be given a job or it is sexist.
Claire was clearly a good candidate but Lee was more consistant throughout the series and that is why he won, no sexist intent there.
SAS said Claire can always come to him for advice so he clearly rated her but felt Lee was better for him. Claire will do really well, she said on breakfast TV she already had job offers and had a meeting planned with Karen Brady next week.
Right result and no way sexist
What is "tubby bye bye" ? Is this a bit sizeist ? :yawn:
There was a tedious situation at a firm I worked for when a woman who had been off work for months on maternity leave returned, and was the only woman in her department not made redundant! Since she had been sitting on her backside at home all that time, one would have thought that her name would have been at the top of the list! It seemed ironic that those in the office who had been beavering away (and doing HER job) were sacked. :eek:
She was eventually made redundant a couple of years later (she had fallen out of favour, due to having too much time off sick)!!
Employers shouldn't pander to women who become pregnant in the same way they shouldn't treat them less favourably because of it.
She should have been made redundant the same as the others.
But fair redundancy is never about the person but the role.As in the best person suited for the role. I know it is galling for staff being made redundant but If the company had followed fair practice then the person on maternity would not have been selected as her role was not at risk.
Of course I am going on very little facts here. Unfortuantely, some companies know very little about employment law and are scared stiff to do anything with a pregnant woman. It doesn't mean they cannot lose their jobs it just means they cannot be selected for redundancy because they are pregnant. Big difference!
It's called "fair comment"
I very much doubt that any parent with a young child ''sits on their backside all day", and if that's what you believe, you need to wake up to reality.
I agree with your point about the redundancies entirely though - based purely on what you have stated as I obviously odn't know the details of the case.
Where does he mention women?
not at all, he is sexist because of his actions and what he has said in the past.
You are missing the point, he made his comments before she "left" by that famous footballing term, "mutual consent"
if you read the whole article you will see plenty of references
Do you know what? I think he's got more important things to worry about.
However the events unfolded that caused Michelle to resign, I am fairly certain that Mr Sugar only lost a little sleep over it - and that would have been because of his own misjudgement, rather than her behaviour (which was, incidentally, not questionable- we are all entitled to get pregnant and leave jobs at will. He did not buy her soul). I am also certain that he did not reject Claire on the basis of her sex.
Alan Sugar is a canny, clever man who knows what he wants in his business, and who is likely to stick it. He made a misjudgement with Michelle - but who's to say that Ruth would have stayed longer? This is the nature of GOOD business people. They do not need the job, and their life is to short to spend it pandering to the audience of a TV show!