I accept that and take it back.

You might not be talking crap but I do disagree with you.

sorry, dont understand the highlighted bit.

Besides he has made comments in the media that back this point up. Now its a very hard thing to prove I admit, but he hasnt helped himself by saying what he has said about women and employment laws in the past.

Many a case has been fought on less.

In answer to the OP - on what basis?

There was nothing sexist about his selection of Lee over Claire - unless I'm missing something.

fair enough and I appreciate that. After all this is a forum for debating. Both sides of the argument can be heard before its decided that I'm right.... (joke)

I'll have to have a hunt around to find something on it, but that was the general feeling i had.

Alan sugar employs 100s of women. Heck he even has a woman by his side on the show who he highly rates.

So this thread is nonsense.

I am a "stay-at-home-mum" and I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that question.

There is a perception that you should very easily manage to be a great mum and a good team player at work. Some manage it very well, but they probably have strong (and expensive) child care arrangements. Usually, if the kids are ill and can't go to nursery/school then its the women who ends up calling into work to take time off at short notice. Regardless of whether its an un-PC point of view, it is a fact that other colleagues then have to cover that work and if it happens on a fairly regular basis it can become an issue and resentment can fester, which isn't an ideal scenario.

I always think that the employer has a duty to all staff, and if that means passing over someone who might not be able to pull their weight in the future, then so be it.

there are laws against talking utter rubbish too.
siralan has the utmost respect for claire as he demonstrated tonight but lee just shaded it,you need to get over it.
claire didnt seem to upset on "your hired"did she?

Yes, fair point but where do you draw the line? I'm certainly NOT saying here that I think Suralan didn't hire Claire because she is a woman.

However, in the 'real' business world, is it not ridiculous to presume that an ambitious and capable woman, no matter how dedicated to her work, is likely to become a liability simply because she is a woman and may one day choose to go forth and multiply? That's very narrow-minded discrimination that does not take the individual into account.

I run a business and when interviewing I believe it is important to get an understanding of this before taking someone on.

It is obviously different for a someone with an organisation the size of Sir Alan's but it would entirely legitimate for me to discriminate against someone on the basis of this if it was deemed reasonable for me to do so.

actually there are no laws against talking rubbish, although there is such a thing as manners when talking to others who happen to have a different view from you

heres an interesting piece I have just found:

http://www.personneltoday.com/blogs/...t-pause-1.html

Maybe I could have worded my OP better but I believe by his previous comments he has left himself wide open for this kind of legal challenge. He has practically given the daming evidence himself. In most of these types of cases its very much one word against another, but his feelings on employment laws and womens equality rights, leaves him open to this kind of legal action

Similarly to me not having to take on someone with a disability if it was deemed that I could not reasonably make the adjustments necessary for them to be able to perform the role.

Regardless of any working/equal opportunities/law things I think it was only natural that SAS was disappointed about what happened with Michelle Dewberry.

Getting knocked up by a fellow Apprentice candidate is hardly the smartest move and completely ruins the integrity of the show.

The whole premise is that they are all battling for this hugely covetted role in SAS's company and she basically squandered it by seeking a higher media profile and by getting pregnant.

PC or not PC I think SAS is well within his rights to be a bit miffed by that.

I am not sure the courts would see that as reasonable grounds to discriminate, no matter how small the business. Are you saying that you ask women candidates if they are planning on having a family in the near future? If so, you are on very thin ice and I would advise you do no longer unless you want to lose a great deal of money.

ETA I note your point about disability and you are right but you would have to prove that it would not be viable to make adjustments but again the court would take a very dim view of blatant discrimination.

Small businesses cannot just use the excuse oh it isn't viable for me to employ a pregnant/ disabled person!!

I am pretty sure Sir Alan can use whatever judgement he likes in employing whomever he likes.

People do discriminate in employing someone. Fat people might be overlooked for someone more healthy, an old person might be discriminated against a younger person as the employer might be thinking very long term, a woman might be discriminated against based on strength issues.

Employers are not meant to but they do and always will.

At the end of day, Claire was on the losing team more often than anyone else in the final and at the end of the day she was beaten by the better candidate.

I run a relatively small business and if I was looking for a temporary employee to work for me for 6-12 months, to for example cover for a role on which my current employee is on Maternity leave or extended break following child birth, I would definately look for someone who is able to provide me effective cover.

I would always be open and honest and do not have the resources to employ an unlimited number of women starting/expanding families.

I am a panelist on employment tribunals and genuinely believe an employment tribunal would NOT find me unfairly discriminating.
Last edited by The-Apprentice : 12-06-2008 at 00:57

Why? I dont see why it matters who made her pregnant does it? And whether you or I agree with it, the law is the law and you can not discrimate on those grounds

He cant, thats the point of the Equality laws. They may be wrong or he may disagree with them, but the law is the law.

male, female, who cares? I'm so glad Lee won, he deserved it

I agree with you, I used to run a small business as well and its a minefield for small companies, but we have to stick within the laws

I don't believe Alan Sugar has any axe to grind re male versus female, he chose the person he wanted, that's all.

Personally I wasnt so worried about him lying on his CV, although usually if you get caught thats that, but I was disgusted with his lack of effort on his spelling on his CV. Using a spell checker is an easy thing to do and a must nowadays, especially if you are someone who has problems with spelling. I do thats why I use spell checker all the time. The fact that he didnt even bother to me say he is someone who isnt worth hiring.

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

No, I think you're missing my point here.

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?