There is no way is business today you can ask about children and/or location regarding a job position!
It can lead to discrimination, thats the thinking.

Therefore these Apprentice interviews were totally wrong!

However, thats not to say I believe in politcal correctness. I think children and location effect the ability to perform within a business.

Tc

I completely agree and was going to post myself about this - why on earth is it ok for SAS to ask only the women about moving to London and not the men... even worse was that Kristina's son was an adult and she had only lived in her current town for 4-5 years so she was used to moving around. If I as a women was asked about this in an interview over my skills I would be most offended

The only reason he didn't ask the boys was because Tre already lives in Essex and Simon lives in London

But Tre has kids too- no mention of them!

Im telling you now...if any one of you go for an interview tomorrow the interviewer will not ask you about children or location!

Personally, I think they should be able to but they can't.

Tc

We've been discussing this in another thread...Did they ask Trey about his Kids..

It's pretty disgusting and really both Katie and Kristina could have a case for the tribunal.

I think it illustrates how out of date SAS and his cronies are and therefore indicates what it must be really like to work for Amstrad.

I did fume about this. And that guy who said Kristina had had issues, like raising her son, but she had "risen above it"

Surely it is up to the candidate before applying, to ensure they can do the job and do all it entails and the interviewer must assume the candidate has presented themselves on that basis?

Why on earth they were able to get away with it, I don't know.

Although it did seem from the editing that the women brought the issue up. (but of course it would, wouldn't it)

A good interviewer would have glossed over the fact they had brought it up and moved on.

Yep, Sir Allan doesn't come over as a good employer to be honest, the perks seem pretty lousy given what he looks to take out of people.

And why's that? I assume it is because men always have the women to rely on for childcare arrangements? Or if you have a women with children versus a man with children you would employ the man because the women would have to sort out the childcare problems?

Actually, just thinking about this and my last post...I think those views are prevalent in most companies today but just not said..

I don't think viewpoints have really changed or progressed despite burning bras and being chained to railings.

It's called sexual discrimination and is illegal. Full stop! The company could be prosecuted.

I've conducted interviews based on application forms where marital status and information about personal issues - including family is not asked. If I were to bring up such issues in an interview I would be in deep trouble.

...that was my initial point.
However, if I owned a small post office, I would like to know if the employee has children as there will be times when that employee is late and has to take time off for the kids. That impacts on my business and profits.

Also if the employee lives in an area with poor transportation, I would like to know.

A bad decision could cost me my business. Yet, apparently, I can not ask these relavant questions when interviewing.

Tc

I don't see what the problem is . He isn't saying "tie up your ovaries and give your kids up for adoption". He is simply asking about what their plans are. The only time I see a problem arising is if he did not offer them the job based on the fact that they have kids.

Even Simon got his own share of it with the whole living in Clapham and it being too far thing. Should he sue for discrimination against Clapham?

I totally agree.

Why do you think that being a mum makes you a poor choice as an employee. Ok so maybe there will be tiimes when mum might have to put the kids first. However there will be so many more times where she will be a great employee. She will also welcome stability so she is much less likely to take your training and then flit to another job.

Chill out guys its TV. They probably asked the 2 ladies because they are both SINGLE parents and he was concerned who would look after the kids. Im sure if Tre was a single Dad that SAS would have asked him too.

He asked Simon about location as well and he lives in Clapham. You cant apply interview law to this programme! Its not a normal interview, its TV. SAS isnt sexist, the last winner was a woman. Maybe he is worried because the last winner got preggers and jumped ship.

Contestants Personal life does come into this due to the nature of the job. I was asked about my dog when i got my dog and whether i could get a dog sitter when i have to go away and whether he is a programme. Is my company Pet-ist? No. Come on guys dont take it so seriously

The problem with this is that dinosaur employers make the assumption automatically that the woman deals with childcare, and therefore is less reliable. And that isn't always the case.

They also assume if aged 30 you don't have kids, you are just about to.

The fact is, you are at just as much risk employing a guy, in your post office who might turn out to be just as unreliable. Perhaps he will sleep in alot. Or perhaps he has elderly parents to care for. Or perhaps he is just a waster. You just don't know, and he isn't going to admit to any of the above at interview....

I agree that smaller businesses can find it a minefield when employing women, and it can be an expensive issue to absorb. Personally I'd like to see a fairer system of reimbursement to aid small businesses. But I can also see it from the point of view of a woman of child bearing age.

Personally, I made a commitment to my employer the day they hired me. To me it is about working together to find the best working practice that suits us both and ideally it would be up to the individual employers to work things out with their employees. Unfortunately many employers are less clued up about the work-life balance and because of this there needs to be legislation to protect parents.

And you're sitting in my head, stealing my thoughts?

I simply think it was okay for him to ask those questions so he can know what not only her travel plans are, but also her childcare plans.

She is going to be working for him, he can't pretend the kids aren't part of her life.

Yes, your company is Pet-ist!

I think my landlord is Pet-ist . . . I wonder if there is a support group for this sort of Pet based discrimination.

Guilty as charged for stealing thoughts sorry

But the fact is her childcare plans are her own business not his. No one asked Te's plans!

It it really impossible for her to do part of her job from Devon. We have broadband and other technology today. many execs work partly from home

The fact that we didn't see Tre being asked doesn't mean he wasn't asked.

Her childcare plans become his business when she is working for him.

As I said in the main thread if employers have a post which will require unsociable working hours and regular travel they need to think of a way to address the issue at interview without being too blatant. I've done it before many times, and I ask all candidates, not just the 20-35 year old women.

There is no way that an employer could get away with asking the question about childcare as they did on the show. They'd be up at an EAT before they could say 'discrimination.'

There are people out there who seem to make a living out of challenging employers who have messed up in the recruitment and selection process, it can be a very expensive business.

No they don't. Just like her evening plans, or her plans to collect stamps, or her plans to meet friends on a tuesday. She could leave her kids with a bunch of trained monkeys for all it has to do with him.

It is her life, and it is up to her how she ensures it runs smoothly and allows her to be an effective employee. Everybody has commitments outside of business and it aint any business of an employer how they deal with that.

It only becomes an issue if the employee becomes ineffective. And at that point the employer can address the issue and insist the employee carries out the job they are contracted to do.

Your life is your life and your job is your job and it is up to you and no-one else to mesh the two together.

As a prospective employee I think you have the right to expect a prospective employer makes the assumption that if you are there to apply for the job, you are capable of doing it.

This is a slightly different issue though. There is nothing wrong with an employer asking a candidate if they are aware of the travelling or shift patterns or unsociable hours the job involves and whether they are happy with that.

There are all sorts of reasons a person might not be able to fit that into their life, or be prepared to work those hours.

The question cannot be phrased as " will it be a problem with childcare if you have to work away" or "who will look after your kids at night" Or worse, "Will you still be able to do these hours if you have kids" But ensuring an interviewee is aware of what is expected of them is quite acceptable.

Exactly, excellent post!