Is Alan Sugar being reasonable?

[MardyBra]

Should employers be allowed to ask women about their child-bearing plans?

I would have posted this in Feminism but thought I'd just get flamed for the DM link

Frankly, I think DM links should get flamed here, too.

I warned you Tizwoz - you didn't have to click on it.

No, but then he's generally not reasonable about many things, as much as I enjoy the apprentice I do find most of his opinions quite odious and often ill informed, how he ever got to be a Lord I'll never know.

Regarding asking women about their childbearing plans as employers can't be trusted to not discriminate against women based on the answer to such questions therefore they loose the right to ask about it.

Also and please tell me if I have this wrong, but I thought the government refunded all SMP to the company, and they are definitely responsible for paying MA which is all women get if they have been employed for two years, so I don't really understand the argument about it being very expensive for a business. because they do not have to pay a woman who is on ML (although obviously there are some extra costs but they shouldn't be as much as some businesses seem to imply).

I can't make my mind up about this, but actually, I think I'm more on the side of he is being reasonable.

There must be women out there that have been turned down for a job because the interviewer had second guessed and decided they probably will want children, when in reality, they don't. Or don't have any immediate plans to at least.

I think it can be very unfair on employers when women take a job and then become pregnant shortly afterwards, only to return to work for a couple of months and get pregnant again.

But of course, women shouldn't be prevented from employment just because they want children at some point.

It's a tough one, and I don't think there is ever going to be a situation that is fair to both employer and employee.

Maybe smaller companies that would genuinely struggle with maternity leave should be able to ask, but larger companies that could easily swallow the extra costs should still be barred from knowing.

Nah, I didn't actually click on it. Thank goodness. I'd hate to give them the page views.

Why, oh why, do people assume that anything the DM is factually accurate at all, and not something that is twisted beyond all recognition out of the original, inevitably minor, event.

How would it work though? Who in their right minds, would attend an interview and say "oh yes I am ttc and then will give up work". That would be daft as you would not be offered the job. So everyone will deny baby plans and the employer will be no better off - would the proposal be to sack women if they DID get pregnant when they had said at interview that it was not their intention? What if they had fallen pregnant unexpectedly? Would they be expected to terminate the baby or else be sued?

It's just not practical. FGS men at interview can't predict reliably whether they might be ill in the next 4 years and nobody would expect them to.

[Tizwoz] Ok, 'twas a tongue in cheek comment really - didn't want to start a debate over whether we should link to the DM, I was more interested in the debate over the employment of women of childbearing age.

Alan Sugar has never been reasonable.

Regardless, whether employers should or shouldn't be allowed to ask such questions is immaterial unless they wire applicants up to lie detectors.

In the article, AS says "I would be very impressed by a person who settled the matter at the outset, telling me how they are going to organise their life in order to do their job..."

Until you have a kid you REALLY don't know how it is going to affect your life. I had plans to totally decorate our flat on maternity leave having absolutely no idea of how much work is involved with a newborn.