I actually think he has a point...

[Gonzo33]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362589/Lord-Sugar-says-women-looking-job-tell-employers-plan-baby.html

I would be happy declaring whether or not I am going to have any more children and my child care arrangements. I am exceptionallly organised when it comes to these things though because I was a single parent who worked full time for many years.

What do you think?

I sometimes wonder if I got my currant job over the other candidate because the other candidate had a young child and was going through a divorce as where I was moving 250 miles across the country for the job because I had no ties and I could do it. It was clear to my employer that I was single and having children was not on the cards. I know this as she told me how she was grilled on the subject of childcare and current living arrangements.

I had though always intended on having a family. I am now 38 weeks pregnant with my first and I don't intend to stop at 1. If however I was asked in a job interview I would lie.

Sharing existing circumstances is reasonable because both parties need to understand where they stand but sharing plans is a bit like saying "my goal is to lose 14 lbs" - who knows whether that'll actually happen. Best to keep quiet.

fucking hell, what a twat that mr sugar is.

he's a numbskull that got very lucky

he can fuck right off

not sure if this has already been said or not - i would happen to find this very rude and sexist - theses kind of questions used to exist years ago and should not do so now. lord sugar's attitude to this is not helpful to women returning to work. i woudl agree that if it were to be asked at all, then the employer shoudl be ready to accept that, in the 'any questions' section of the interview, there is a possibility that the interviewer would be asked the same question!!!

I wouldn't necessarily even share existing circumstances. In fact I didn't when I started my current job in the early stage of pregnancy. I did tell HR confidentially, but I certainly wasn't going to share the news with my new managers at the highly risky stage, two months before telling any of our family and friends.

One of the other interviewees for my job who, as it turned out, was second in line for it, was offered a similar position in the same organisation about a month after I started. She's done with childbearing and it been legal for employers to interrogate us about our reproductive arrangements no doubt she would have been given the job over me. Funnily enough she handed in her notice last week (one month's notice as opposed to the five that I gave) and will be gone before me. Everybody's circumstances change.

Anyway it's fairly obvious that Alan Sugar just doesn't like women much. I don't think there is a lot more to this than that.

helenradio that's what probationary periods are for! To protect employers. After that, it is every woman's working right to get pregnant. The shit it throws up is not her responsibility - it's a legally-sanctioned and very normal part of life, IMO.

Sorry, posting late, didn't mean to sound aggressive!

Well he can fuck right off. I suppose right now I'd be seen as "safe" in terms of having any more children (athough I've got the downside of being a single parent). If I had to tell someone now what my plans (or hopes shoul probably be the word.....unless you have IVF it's actually rather difficult to "plan" a baby so precisely.....) then I would tell them that I hoped to have more children. Of course this is

a) dependent on me meeting a man that wanted a/more children
b) actually managing to conceive again and carrying the baby to term.

I'm nearly 32.......that may, or may not, happen in the next 10yrs..........chances are it won't - but then again it could.

When I acceoted the position of church organist at my church 8yrs ago I had one child, and a 2yr old. We had talked about more children, but exH wasn't sure and so even trying was on hold.

2 months later I had to go and tell the vicar I was pregnant - and was due 4 weeks before Christmas (THE busiest time in the year for a church organist) .

3yr after that I started working nights in a care home. Again we had no plans for a child (exH was DEAD set against it, I hoped to broach the subject in the future). 18 months later I was pregnant

Neither of those places knew my plans (or not) for children. If they'd have asked and I HAD to tell the answer would have be "no - no plans for another child"..........yet 2 came along.

If I HAD to tell a current prospective employer my plans (hopes) the answer would be yes........but none may come along.

I recently talked to a married couple who have no children. Both have high level careers and employ other professionals beneath them. They both told me that they would not employ a woman who was either thinking of having children or SHOCKINGLY who already had children. The woman claimed that someone wtih children would not have the professinal dedication to carry the job through. She said this while admitting that two women on her team had had children while they were with her and their childcare demands had never interfered with their job ("I know them, it won't get in the way. It might be different for another woman"). The man said his business would go bust if he paid for maternity leave and had to organise cover. He said he had a small business with very specialised roles. "I can't afford it."
It occured to neither of them that a man might like to apply for paternity leave. It occured to neither of them that they were making assumptions about women in the workplace that weren't even back up by their own experience. It bothered neither of them that they were doing nothing to enable equality of opportunity in the workplace.
I was unbelievably shocked by this. I was quite breathless with rage. (But despite argueing my case, I had to be polite as they were my parents friends...).

was his wife a sahm?

i bet ges never had to have time off to take the to the drs etc.

what spoilt jumped up little prick.

them.

When I started my current job my son was 6 years old. I am pretty sure they thought I was all done. Yet, 4 years later I became pregnant, had my 9 months off etc.

For me, having one at secondary and a little one settled in a very good (on site) nursery means I am very unlikely to look for other positions right now.

Yesterday thousands of women gathered in London for the "Million women rise" march. (Including our own MNers)

Tuesday is International Women's Day.

In the words of the great Bob Marley -

"Get up, stand up !
Stand up for your rights !

Get up, stand up !
Don't forget the fight !"

A.S suggests women should voluntarily tell prospective employers about their future hopes and plans to have children.
And some of us say, oh yes, that's a good idea...

Come on, people !

Unfortunately, I feel, one of the main problems is that those at the top of the chain, the High Heidyins, are mostly men. The majority of palimentarians are men - and who makes the laws? And the majority of people at the bottom, on low paid, part time posts? - women. Yes Sisters, they have us exactly where they want us. And the tiny number of women who do make it to the top of the tree seem to believe that the only way to get ahead is to behave like the worst of mysoginist men. I saw one episode of The Apprentice and was thoroughly appalled, I couldn't believe that people could be so mean and nasty to each other, and the women? Instead of working together and fighting their corner were the worst to one another.

What's the solution? We need more women in places of power and influence - and not these ones with penis envy. We need more women in politics and law, and we need a whole societal change in attitudes. We need men, and some women, to realise that having well educated, hard working mums, who will most likely give birth to children who will be well educated and hard working, BENEFIT society, and are not a burden. That a job should be given to the person who is best qualified for it, not based on the presence or absence of tits and ovaries - and whether they plan to use them in the near/distant future (or have done).

Argh...this makes me sooooo mad that we are still having this discussion in the 21st century , Emily Pankhurst was fighting for woman's rights over 100 years ago, and my mum did not chain herself to the railings of Glasgow Uni for fun in the 70s!

And after this rant I am off for a lovely cup of ginger tea and hope that el-bambino has not been adversely affected by rage hormones

Can't believe there are people in here who choose to reassure interviewers that they are done having children.
I was very careful not to tell my boss that my family was complete until I had been employed for a few weeks and it came up naturally in conversation - before that it was no one else's business!
How depressing

Gosh there's some ignorance on this thread. To address just a few points (lest anyone be foolish enough to be taking any of this as gospel):

1. It is illegal to ask questions at interview or at any time about a woman's intentions to have children/current parental situation/childcare. This is indirect sex discrimination.

1. Protection from sex discrimination starts before a job is offered. It starts from the very first contact whether that be seeing a job ad or a phone call in fact.

1. Probationary periods/short service (ie less than 1yr) do not give employers a get out clause. To fail to renew a contract/terminate employment/offer a contract due to a woman being pregnant or having children is illegal. There is no minimum period, she is protected immediately by the law.

Quite.

I really do think women should stop apologising for their undeniable power in being able to create and nurture new life. Doesn't automatically mean they've had their brains removed, and are no longer able to meet the requirements of paid employment.

Sorry katiemiddleton, quite right about the probationary periods. I was responding to an earlier post where another poster had suggested that women were being unfair to their employers if they got pregnant as soon as their probationary periods were over, and I should have said that, probationary period or not, it is every working woman's right to have a baby. What I should have said was that even if you personally felt that it was unfair to your employer to have a baby straight away (for whatever reason) that after a probationary period I can't see how it could ever seem unfair! You've already proved your worth! (Not that all this should matter anyway.)

Am currently 18 months into a 3 year probationary period and 6 months pregnant, so I should have known better ha ha!

I will go back and read the whole thread, but I thought I'd add my experiences first.

I have worked at the same company for eight years this summer. Last year, I was approached about applying for another (better) role, I ummed and ahhed, but given DH and I had been TTC for 2years, I knew that (hopefully) sometime soon I'd be on maternity leave again. I declined to apply. I was then approached again by the managers asking me why I hadn't applied, so I was very honest and said that I was TTC and would prefer not to be in a new role, they told me that it wasn't an issue and I should apply, so I did and got the role. I found out I was pregnant on my first day in the new role. Not an issue, boss was lovely about it.

A few weeks later, another role came up, again a step up the ladder, in my old team, one that I did not think would be opening anytime soon. I again ummed and ahhed, but stuck in my CV, and had a chat with the hiring manager before hand, and did say that I was pregnant. I was still hired, started the role in Dec and am due to go on mat leave in May. They are very supportive.

I accept that the company may be quite forward thinking, and in no way did I ever have to tell anybody that I was TTC but I wanted to be honest with them about my intentions.

In my case it may be slightly easier because I have been there for a long time, so not a new role in a new company, so I have a "track record" iyswim (won global employee of the year last year). Whether i would be so honest if applying for a different company, I dont know. However, I'm now also honest about the fact that this (being my second) is going to be my last baby, I don't plan to get pregnant again.

Off to read the rest of the thread now.

The problem is of course that we're asking for special treatment if we have kids (maternity leave, flexible hours, having to get to nursery by 5:30pm or else...). And unfortunately that impacts on our work performance - we suddenly can't cope with the 12 hour shifts we used to pull, or being away overnight, or client entertaining. We have different priorities now.

Face it, if anyone else turned up late, having had 2 hours sleep, smelling of vomit and looking like something the cat dragged in, whilst yawning and being tetchy with a customer, they'd be up in front of a disciplinary.

Either we can do our jobs to the required standard or we can't. But you can't possibly know beforehand 1) if you'll get pregnant, 2) if the baby will be "easy" 3) if you'll even want to return to work. So it's not fair to ask these questions at interview of anyone. A better question would be "The job requires are you prepared to do that?" And if you aren't then you don't get the job or if you suddenly find you can no longer do those things, then you quit/get fired.

"if anyone else turned up late, having had 2 hours sleep, smelling of vomit and looking like something the cat dragged in, whilst yawning and being tetchy with a customer"

Who does that?? Small baby or not I'd expect to be in trouble for that.

NorthernGirl: Speak for yourself! of your list "maternity leave, flexible hours, having to get to nursery by 5:30pm or else." my DCs father has done all of those equally with me exceot the maternity leave, and we women take the maternity leave on behalf of every father who is in the workplace. Also, because we share parenting properley, 50%, sionce we both work, yes I DO "cope with the 12 hour shifts we used to pull, or being away overnight, or client entertaining." I just have to make sure it isn't on the same night as DH is entertaining his clients!

Please don't assume that all women become back-seat workers and all men are B team child-carers back home. It can be made to work for everyone, but woh mothers who absolve a child's father from a full share of parenting make it harder for this to be taken seriously.

Actually we're asking for equal treatment northerngirl. Not special treatment. With the exception perhaps of maternity leave which I am very happy to share with my partner so then that becomes equal too.

But until men can have babies there needs to be reasonable accommodation of maternity related situations.

I think the point is that women can do just as good a job as men and having children is irrelevant of that fact. If we start assuming women can't then we are discriminating. And by disciminating organisations miss out on potential which makes them anti-competitive.

And this assumption that just because women biologically produce the babies means we have to assume total responsibility for raising them is just a load of rubbish. As is "Well I've never experienced maternity related discrimination so I can't see the problem". I've not directly experienced many forms of discrimination but that doesn't mean I can't see from other evidence that it exists. There is a reason for this anti-discrimination legislation. Laws are not passed for fun, they're passed for a purpose.

(Don't worry takethatlady I wasn't especially hacked off at you. Threads like this just give me the rage )

northerngirl, that's exactly why we need absolutely equal parental rights, so that men can feel as comfortable asking to have to be home by 5:30pm, as comfortable asking for flexible time, and all the burden of picking up the pre-9am/post-5pm slack being equal between working partners instead of all on the working mum.