Sure, some women can use baby making as a form of getting sufficent periods of time off (without having to give up work completely and become a housewife) but... as the saying goes, it does takes two to Tango so her pregancey isn't all her own doing to place blame on. And, unless she refused to let her partner have a share of taking the time off to look after the baby himself then at least some of the time that she's taken away is valid. In relation to the Apprentice perhaps it is that she didn't like the job anymore so wasn't burdened with the decision to time it perfectly with the job (as some woman struggle with) which wasn't thoughtful to Sugar if is the definite case.

Obviously i do understand that for employers it is annoying when women become pregnant (esp when not planned) but, until companies allow more flexibiliy with mothers and fathers in terms of care then there are those that are always going to be left in the lurch. People forget that some employers aren't happy/co-operative to let their men employers give up their work which, for some reasons, is that some business still value the male workers more and would rather lose a pre/post pregnant mum than an expectant/new father (which isn't helpful to the woman if she badly wants to return to work and swap with a willing husband who wants to take the leave). In Yasmina's case, maybe it is her fault and lack of regard (as seems to be) and woman with that attitude def aren't helpful at all. But in other cases generally, the empolyer can make it very hard for couples to negotiate the situaton for sharing care-leave themseleves and it's a shame that the larger blame of pregnency still automatically falls on the woman pre/post the.pregancy. This side of the employer prefering the male to stay at their work place and therefore in turn make the woman have to stay away from her work place longer (if getting a nanny or nursery isn't affordable long term) seems to only be focused on more now even though it's prob been the case for quite some time. My cousin is a house husband and boy did he get some frowns from his colleagues when he said he wanted to take time off to look after his baby boy.

To be fair, it's what was supposed to happen. They were supposed to learn from Lord Sugar and then leave to put what they learned into effect. They weren't supposed to be his employee forever.

Would the employer be criticised if they hire someone because they know that person won't go on maternity leave?

Criticised? What you suggest is surely it illegal.

yes, that's what I suspected. But why is it illegal? If you are a small business, last thing you need is one of your sales force to disappear for 9 months. If two candidates equally matched, you would choose one who is not going to be on maternity within a few months of taking the job (which is what happens many times - people keep it quiet in interviews, then 3 months later they are "accidentally" up the duff)

I still blame Paula for getting the costs wrong. She was the PM, and therefore had overall responsability.

As for employment laws when woman get pregnant, its surely not fair to sack (or not employ) someone suitable for a job, just because they are pregnant, which is why these laws were brought in.

Why do you think?! It's to prevent discrimination. Employers are not allowed to ask candidates if they are married or if they intend to start a family.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/index.htm

It's not discrimination though, it is dealing with an issue where plenty of people are guilty of covering up pregnancies when they get a job, and are on maternity leave 2 months in. Where are the laws and regulations for that?

Guilty? There's no crime. At interview, employers are not allowed to ask if someone is pregnant or if they intend to start a family. It may shock you to know pregnant women have lots of employment rights.


Fortunately, we live in an enlightened society where both women and men are covered under laws such as sex discrimination, racism and disability. Employees are also entiltled to statutory sick pay, paid holidays and have protection against unfair dismissal.

If you'd like to know more, then you need to check the TUC and Directgov websites.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/tuc/rights_main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/...ts/DG_10026556

you are kind of ignoring the point I make though about small businesses faced with a choice of employing two equally capable people. I didn't want to get into a debate I am fully aware that it is illegal, but I think it is wrong that you can hide and lie about this to con an employer out of maternity pay, particularly if it (a) costs someone else a job and (b) the business employed on the basis that they thought they'd be getting someone in to help with their workload

It's a chance businesses have to take. No-one has to hide or lie because the issue should never be raised at an interview.Also I think the state pays maternity pay or a least contributes a large share. You have a point about another person missing out though and the employer losing the help with the workload

But you are getting into a debate though.

Anyway clearly according to Alan Sugar all the candidates were not "equally capable" he chose Yasmina as the BEST candidate. As for the question of if she plans to have a family, is there meant to be a time limit on this question? 10 years perhaps? 15 years? 20 years? Their whole life?

Also no one would be conning anyone out of maternity pay, its the law.

If a small business hires a woman, and she is good at her job, but after 14 years of working hard for the company gets pregnant, most people would say it would be unfair to sack her. So would I, and so would the law.

That happened at my work, its a small mental health organisation dealing with some extremely vunerable people. The woman got the job, gets to know the members and trained on the job, then admitts to being 6 months pregnant. Shes had the baby now but not sure when she will be back. Her place was vacant for a while, whilst they found somebody to cover, go through all the training again. Not sure what the cost is to the company they dont have that much money to start with but its more the upheaval with change of support worker for the members there thats the issue in my eyes.

Of course that would only be fair but the poster above was asking about revealing a pregnancy in an interview for a small company, not them sacking her after over a decade of hard work.

So as I said then, is there meant to be a time limit after which someone who is pregnant, can't be sacked, or should the law be the same for everyone from day 1.

I think the law should be the same for everyone from day 1.

Agreed. Sorry Stash22 your example may seem wrong and it must be difficult for small employers, but surely those cases are in the minority, so overall the majority benefits?

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that employers are not allowed to ask prospective workers at interview if they have imminent plans to have a child, it beggars belief in my eyes. And if a woman already knows she's pregnant at job interview, says nothing, and plans to have that baby, then she should face automatic dismissal under law imo, if not in fact actually be liable for compensation to the company!

Back on topic I thought Yasmina was a most undeserving winner, but then most of them have been.

Yasmina was a worthy winner, and whatever the constraints of the programme, she did not misrepresent herself in any way, and in going to work for LS she had the normal employment and maternity rights.

Looking at the other side of the equation, has anyone ever demonstrated that the "offer" was fairly presented to the candidates who became the early winners - ie before the new "business partner" format where LS invests cash (or equivalent value?) in the winner's business idea ?

Was there ever a "real" job, ie a line position in LS's organisations or one which would have existed without the need to find a role for the winner of the competition ? How was the £100k salary broken down - bonus, benefits (health, car etc) included or extra?? If the package was 50/50 plus benefits included in the £100k it may have been worth around £35-40k basic.

Did the BBC subsidise the first year in any way? Were the winners offered a similar deal for the second year or were they expected to accept a less lucrative offer if they wished to stay ? From the press reports it would seem that Stella's case addresses some of these issues. I would be surpised if it were allowed to come to court.

And what if she DOESN'T plan to have a baby at the time of the interview and then gets pregnant a few months later.

Was Yasmina up against Sandhurst boy? I always liked her and it's her choice to have a family if she wants to, they aren't tied to LS. That's what evil Katie tried to sell herself on that she was never going to have more children so she wasn't going to need maternity leave.