Tre mentioned he had children or a child (I forget which) a few weeks ago when Jadine had her breakdown.

Did he get asked about that this week?!

Good point!!! No, I don't think they did mention his children or ask him about his commitment. I thought the interviewing was pretty abismal actually and definitely something from the dark agest that most corporations addressed a long time ago. If that question were asked anywhere other than on the television, both Katie and Kristina could take SAS to a tribunal.

For all her faults I thought that SAS gave Katie a shocking decision to make. Disgusting.

Is SAS exempt from Equal Opportunities law?

Thankyou someone ese for picking this up. Claude was surely breaching all kinds of employment laws by interrogating her on childcare arrangements.

No wonder women struggle to break the glass ceiling

I am out of date with Employment Law, but it was the case that asking about marital status and children was the fastest route to a Tribunal.

Some years ago I was on an EO Review group at work, we removed sections on title (Mr/Mrs/Miss) and marital status, also age. All interview candidates are asked the same questions which are carefully vetted to ensure there is no discrimination.

Yip - I can understand asking whether having to relocate would be problematic etc....... but the whole "so I'll go and tell Sir Alan your priority is yer kids" vibe was pretty shocking.

Very true, this was a "no win" questions

Say the kids are a priority: Seem non comitted to job
Say Job priority: Come across as evil and non caring

Katie actually replied to this question in pretty much the perfect way, but no one on here could possibly give her some credit!

Exactly, I know it is a tv show, but really, some of the interviewers questions were OTT and below the belt. No way they would pass the HR department nowadays!

I do give Katie some credit on her answer however I wonder how the interviewer would answer the same question (assuming he has kids) - kids or your job??

It's unfortunate that however dedicated you are to your job (which I am to my detrimate sometimes!) at the end of the day if you have a family at some point they must come first. I have a fantastic support network around me however if something serious happened to my son I would down tools and be straight there - I think this is possibly what Katie meant

Exactly - completely loaded and leading.
There's plenty of things to dislike about Katie but credit were it's due she handled that line of questioning extremely well.

Tre isnt a single parent and katie and Christina are. End of

my thoughts exactly. sexism personified, though he seems to have countered this somewhat by offering her one half of a winning ticket. I now wish katie had admonished him for his crude questioning.

Equals discrimination, end of.

I think it was wrong that she was asked about her childcare arrangements, but she must have disclosed her children on her CV. I'm guessing she used it to "score points" look at me how wonderful I am juggling babies and business. In that situation it would be reasonable to ask how do you plan to do that? as the interviewers did last night. they picked everyone's CV to pieces.

I think that was a red herring though. the truth is she knew she had been rumbled. she had no intention of taking the job. this was something to put on her CV and raise her profile. I fear that may have back fired as she only showed herself to be so ruthless and nasty that she could never be a team player.

Not shocking at all.
Her commitment to her job as a single parent would always be compromised by her commitment to her children.
I'm not of the view that you can 'have it all' - not where children are involved.
With her current 90k a year job and her obvious distaste of motherhood - it makes me wonder how much or little time she actually spends with her children anyway.

I think the point is, Katie said she would always put her children first and that was construed wrong. If someone had said to Tre "you can either have this job and never see your kid or have your kid and never get this job" he too would have chosen his children, its a parent thing. Hell, even Sir Alan would put his kids first I'm sure. The interviewer was trying to tie Katie up in knots...but, having said that, he was right because Katie didn't want to relocate her kids in the end.

The whole childcare line of questioning was an utter disgrace. Kristina is ok to employ because her kid is at uni but not women with small children? God these kids are so pesky. Let's all get sterilized and solve the problem. I've got two small kids and myboss is being very generous on my part time return to work. His payoff? Me busting my guts for him, being a loyal and happy member of staff and giving him 100% commitment in yearsto come when my kids are older.

Tre does appear to live closer to London than Exeter or Harrogate
The question was badly put, and should have been phrased more along the lines of relocation, not child care.

Have any other contestants ever been asked if they'd move? It's not an issue. You apply to on the apprentice = you want the job= it's in london.

Maybe they didn't have a chance to quiz him on his children, as he couldn't get past the international corporation line.

Maybe because he's a man it's not an issue.

Why did they dig up Simon's lodger? They didn't do that to any of the other candidates.

Its a TV show...

In the real world, they would never get away with such aggresive interview tactics - and would anyone want to work for them if they did?! They were rude and very hostile - I would have slapped the fat one who said to Lohit "Stop smiling at me, I'm being mean to you...!" Silly bugger.

Of all the things they dragged up ( Simon's tenant, Kristina's job history, Tre's global empire) whether someone is prepared to locate or not was a pretty tame question.

They had plenty of other weak spots to pick at beefore getting to the kids issue. e.g. his 15 country international business empire run from his sitting room, "as such".

They wee asked valid questions.

Kristina if it would be any problem to relocate, and Katie, as her childcare was handled by her family, whether they would be able to relocate also.

I'm sure they would have asked exactly the same question of any male single parent of very young children, if they were in a similar situation.

If someone has a stay at home spouse who takes on childcare, then it isn't usually an issue.

Surely if you are offering someone a job you are entitled to know whether their support mechanism for major personal issues is in place to everyone's satisfaction - including their own.