Unlike going out to buy stamps or getting pissed with your mates, Kids do not stick to a shedule. I can't believe we are even comparing the two!

It is important for him to know her childare plans so he is postive that she won't run out of an important meeting because little Apple needs a bendy straw.

Hmm, I think I did veer off the main OP slightly.

Agree with your own comments though.

No, it is only important for him to know she can be at the meeting if required. Not how she intends to make that happen.

Her plumbing might freeze in the winter, does he have the right to know if her pipes are lagged. Her washing machine might flood, does he need to know if she has a 5 year warranty? A family member could keel over, does he have the right to know whether or not they are taking care of their health?

Very little in my life sticks to a schedule. As a professional business woman I have contingency plans in place to ensure I can give my employer the attention they pay me for.

Thanks.

I'm always happy to have a veer from time to time.

I fully agree - in my company (which I expect the shock horror )I have worked for for nearly 10 years (and soon I willl get a £250 bonus for - lucky me ) has an external link - where if I have problems I can log on at home. I understand that for some jobs that is a big problem but in an executive role in a larger company than mine) I haven't seen my boss for weeks on end because they are in a different location

Seems a number of his top people choose to stay with him for 15 years plus so he can't be that bad. Personally, I'd have no problem working for him .. as long as you perform he'd be fine to work with.

Based on what? His two side kicks and the three interview bods?

Be interesting to see what the turnover in middle management is; I'd guess it's quite high. I know I'd have to think hard about any potential job offer from Sir Alan. Saying that, I'm a bit of a corporate finance lovey, so he'd probable be about as thrilled with the prospect of working with me...
Last edited by Beasley : 07-06-2007 at 01:52

He seems to have serial problems with single mothers. He seems to have got the issue on the brain - for all we know Simon has parents to care for and Tre would have been running the 15 overseas branches in his sparetime.

Darlings, this is the BBC! What did you expect from such a Neanderthal organisation that very publicly and blatantly discriminates against women while living its fat and pampered life off the earnings of women and other members of the public? We saw its disgusting attitudes to women in its treatment of Anna Ford and Moira Stuart, as well as the awful You're Fired programme presented by that Fatheaded hero worshipper of Tre the misogynist, hailed and overpraised weekly as if he were some kind of somebody. If you want to see more of the same, watch The Apprentice which has done a fine job so far of telling us that women aren't good enough. The Apprentice magazine will complete the job, trumpeting its allegiance to the notion of increased opportunities for women - a very hollow sound, I find.

The irony is that we have government telling us employers should be more family friendly and allow their employees to work more flexibly to fit around their personal lives.

And then we have regulations that prevent employers from asking about this personal life.

Perhaps if an employer was allowed to make these inquiries, just maybe they could make decisions that benefited both them and their staff.

And yet, isn't it true that the women did seem to be far stronger competitors than the men? For all her faults, Katie was marked to be in the last 3, as was Kristina, early on. I also thought Naomi was in the running too. I wasn't so certain when it came to the guys.


I agree to a point. But unfortunately too many employers use it against an employee for that to be a solution. I would say though - an employer doesn't need to know your family situation in order to be flexible. Surely it should be enough to say to them "working these hours would work better for me" They don't need to know why.

Flexible working isn't just for parents!

Sir Alan and his team seem to portray what it was like to be in business inthe 80s, that whole mentality and approach.

Its 2007.

I can't understand why anyone would want to work with him. I know hes signed up for 2 more series but maybe a more up to date employer would have been better

Asking Katie and Christina questions about kids, telling Lohit to eat red meat, come on

I did rate Nick Hewlitt, but after this week, I think SAS has rubbed off on him!

Going back to the thread title, it's not about the interviews being politically incorrect, it's about them being illegal, as others have already said.

No, the only assumption the prospective employer can make is that you THINK you are capable of doing the job.

Actually it isn't illegal in the case of Kristina and Katie as it's clear from the information given that they raised the issue of children through their cv/application form.

It was their decision to write about challenges including them being single mothers and having children, so it wasn't illegal for them to be brought up as issues in the interview.

Maybe Tre wasn't asked because he didn't write about it on the form/cv given to the interviewers!

I find Katie's rmarks far more disturbing, as a mother, that she was a better bet than someone younger who perhaps still wanted children. The fact that she has decided she isn't having any more children doesn't give her the right to now decide that prospective mothers are bad employees!

I just read this a little while ago. You may find it interesting.

http://www.independent.ie/entertainm...ts-694905.html

SUPERB POST foogirl

I must say that I posted at the time regarding SAS's questions relating to Katie's childcare arrangements and was told that he was right to ask the question because of what happened with Michelle!!!

I'm so glad that others have picked up on this. Ok, a LOT of people dislike Katie and I fear their dislike meant that they chose to ignore what was basically a discriminatory question.

Firstly, we only saw a part of all the interviews, I don't see why people decide that the other candidates weren't asked about their families or their commitment to relocate if necessary.


http://www.independent.ie/entertainm...ts-694905.html

Fair comment, if this were indeed the case, but we saw edited versions of the interviews and then the focus of the grilling from Sir Allan was based on what could potentially be a weakness in that candidate's application.

If Tre had lived in Devon then I'm quite sure his future relocation and uprooting his family would have been an issue to confirm (if he'd have got that far)

Kristina was asked the question, and having answered it, was chosen over both Lohit and Tre.

Katie was asked about her commitment to the job if she progressed, and then stepped down, so the commitment obviously wasn't there anyway.

Come on, its hardly a 'normal" job interview now is it?

Why start bringing employment law into it?

You lot are just repeating what you read in today's papers, admit it!

Not me!!!

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...&postcount=245

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...&postcount=250

I agree it's not a "normal" job interview but, SAS has often been quoted as saying that he wanted the show to be an education for both the candidates and the viewers. So what did we learn from those interviews? That if you're a single Mother with pre-school children you're going to be grilled on your child care arrangements even though it's against the law to do so?

More like, if you're a reality show candidate who has absolutely no intention of taking the prize if you win - don't bother.

When will people accept that she wasn't grilled about her childcare arrangements at all - she'd been there several weeks so it's fair to suppose that people realised her chidlren were being taken care of already - do you think they assumed she'd left them home alone to fend for themselves
She was actually asked if she raccepted that the job was based in Brentwood and that she wouldn't be globe trotting to LA, Singapore and the like; that it wasn't glamorous in the way her former employment had been, it was a real brass tacks job on offer - and that if her present childcare arrangements were to stand, the job wouldn't move to Exeter to suit her, so would her family also be prepared to relocate?

In answer to that she replied that she hadn't asked her parents about that - and I, for one, don't believe her for one moment.

IMO her approach to the whole thing is as bad as lying on her CV, and misleading people about her qualification to do a job - if she wasn't prepared to relocate then she shouldn't have been there...she took the place of someone who might actually have wanted the job on offer.

After this series, we'll have more Katies not less. She's dominated these forums and the tabloids for weeks


I'm sorry but I thought she was being quizzed about how her children would be looked after if she accepted the job. On a side note, noone, (not even me) assumed she left her children at home alone, and don't really see what your point is here?


I think that was a valid question and should have been raised, and where I think she really did have reservations about being "The Apprentice".




Should not even have been asked!!!


Whether we believe her or not is immaterial, the question should not have even been considered in an interview situation.


I do feel there is some credence to this point, but, on the other hand she did admit to not knowing much about SAS's companies, so I'll play "Devils Advocate" and say that she "may" have thought that in his multi-million pound empire there might have been an office where could commute.


On that I point I can whole heartedly agree, SAS had plenty of opportunities to fire her but, kept her in over more committed candidates. Surely, he, Nick and Margaret, should have spotted that she wasn't the real deal weeks ago! Let's not forget she was on the losing side more than she was on the winning one, she caused arguments and friction in most of her teams. The woman (like several others in this year's series) wasn't a real team player. Unfortunately it would seem that the ratings seemed to be of prime importance and love her or loathe her she definitely helped to raise ALL of their profiles!!

In the normal course of events I would agree Sugar's line of questioning would be out of order.

However in the context of what had been happening over the course of the show concerns had been raised about whether Katie wanted a job working for Sugar or whther she simply wanted to win the Apprentice. In my view it is not unreasonable for any Employer to make sure that the successful candidate for a job would stay rather than stick two fingers in the air and leave.

The people who interviwed Katie couldn't understand why, given that she had a 9k job, she wanted on the Apprentice in the first place. This concern was echoed by some of the other contestants. That in my view was the reason Sugar asked her about the children.

One thing about Katie like her or loathe her she is not intimidated by anyone. IMHO she could have protested when Sugar asked her those questions but she didn't. I find it very odd to say the least that she hadn't discussed with her parents what would happen if she was successful.

Don't forget either that Sugar did offer her a place in the final. He then fired Tre and it was only then that he commented on her body language. Katie could have said yes she wanted to go through to the final.

Finally if any of you heard that ridiculous woman Jenny Colgan on Jeremy Vine's show calling Sugar an MCP Vine should have reminded her that on last year,s show both finalists were women and Saria was runner up in the first series. The first winner though Male was black. But hey never let the facts get in the way of a Muesli eating, Guardian reading spouter of feminist claptrap having a rant(you see Jenny two can play at cheap insults).

Thanks - I just call it as I see it.

I dislike Katie's style, but that aside I feel too much was made of the issue when it came to family commitments. I also feel that Kristina was given a hard time of it too. To comment that she had "risen above" the issues "reagrding raising a son" was unforgivable. It should not even have been brought into the equation. For that particular interviewer to have grilled her further after she had simply explained that the reason she was at her age before she went for a job like this was because she had spent 18 years raising her son, was just plain wrong. He jumped on it and insisted it was more likely that she just hadn't been prepared to take risks in her life. As if you have that luxury when you are raising a family

I'm prepared to accept that what we saw was an edited version of all the interviews, and it is possible that the guys were asked too. I would just wonder why they would choose to edit it in such a way, if they had indeed been fair and equal.

But the issue isn't that they asked the ladies and not the men, it was that they shouldn't have, under any circumstances, given the impression that having family commitments was an issue when agreeing to take the job. No matter whether you are a bloke or a woman. And the point is that under the law it makes no difference if you ask the guys too - you cannot ask those sorts of questions.

I am certain that anyone applying for the apprentice is well aware of where the job is. I'm also certain if they weren't, it would have been made clear to them during the process. Does anyone know of anyone who would apply for a job in an area miles from their home and not expect to have to move? There is no way Katie (or any of the other contestants) didn't consider this when they applied and I think it is offensive that any of the interviewers asked.

Before I moved to Edinburgh, I lived a couple of hundred miles further north. I was asked this question by 3 out of 5 interviewers. The question of why I wanted to move to Edinburgh was worded well enough and I answered it. The question of how difficult would it be to move was a bit more cagey. I said not at all and was further pressed on whether there was a boyfriend or family to leave behind or take with me and I straight out told the guy asking that he couldn't ask me that. His business partner was delighted at that and said "she's the only one who has ever pulled you up on that one". I got the job. I was also offered the job by the guy who sneaked in the question by saying as we were finishing up "do you have any holidays booked" and I said no, and he said "not a honeymoon or maternity leave to take" I simply didn't respond.

It happens. It happens all the time. It bothers me that employers may see it on TV as being acceptable and it will re-inforce their views.

Which brings me back to whomever it was who asked for examples of men being role models in business. Sugar is high profile and acts in a way which is sometimes very questionable when it comes to women. I'd wager that many male employers would shudder if they thought they were being tarred with the same brush.

Well - maybe what it comes down too - in reality shows if the 'boss' asks the question of childcare/moving etc etc then the tv company should show the same question being asked off all - I do understand that this is a TV show and parts are cut. However to just show the women being asked questions of this nature (especially as one has an 18 year old) harks back to the old days to me. However I agree with Foogirl's comments and I would also say that there is no place in current times for this question to be asked at all - I myself find it insulting that I might end up in a position that because of my home life I may be deemed less of a benefit to a company than someone else with less experience but no 'responsibilities'