is it legal to ask women questions in interviews about child care responsibilities? Was Sralan on dodgy legal grounds?

[hatwoman]

does anyone else think the Apprentice tonight was a disgrace? I think Sralan behaved badly and I think Katie handled it badly. If I was asked questions in an interview about my child-care arrangements (even by Sralan) I would (if feeling a bit timid) simply say that they were perfectly adequate to allow me to do the job. If I was feeling brave I would say please give me the benefit of the doubt - I am a professional and my children - including my child-care arrangements - are my business. You can rest assured they will not interfere with my ability to carry out this job.

I know that the truth is Katie had not thought this through and did not have adequate arrangements in place. both her and Sralan have both done a great disservice to wohms .

Katie had thought it through, of course she did.

It was all part of her game, she wanted to leave on her terms.

It's all a game to her.

Agree with Welshboris.

Although, I have to say - the grilling the Mums got about their children and childcare was dis-heartening.

Do they not know that all WOHMs have nannies, anyway

To be fair he asked Simon the same question.

I do think it is fair to ask people about their willingness to relocate if necessary and how thier families would cope if relocated. It is wrong though to suggest that it is harder for women than men!

I honestly don't think she had - I think she was totaly focussed on winning and hadn't thought much past that because the job itself wasn't her prinary motivation for entering. Was thinking the same as you hat, but on reflection, I think they did a pretty canny job of rumbling her.

I didn't see it (only the You're fired programme, but did they ask the male candidates this?

Because if not, could she technically sue? Or is it just TV, not really a job?

Oops cross posted.

I think it is legal, as long as you ask the same question of all candidates.

He asked Simon but I think it was probably to balance out fact he asked the women...he didn't ask Tre as far as I'm aware and Tre has a child....

Was really angry at the focus on having children in the interviews....really not doing women that want to go back to work any favours at all!!

I think she just used the inadequate childcare as an excuse to not take the job (ie just wanted to win). Agree she got rumbled.
However apart from this, yes i think its unfair to focus so strongly on how having a child effects a woman's career decisions.
not sure about the legality of it tbh

I think the way it was put to Simon was more pointed towards how he would 'fit in' in certain new environments, rather than the difficulties of relocating.

With Katie and other woman whose name escapes me, it was definitely focused on the fact that they have children. (Irrespective of the fact that they currently hold relatively high paid, responsible positions where they currently work).

You would think though, that you would get that sort of thing sorted before you even fill in the application form for something like this.....

I don't really know what you're talking about as I don't watch the prog, but surely there is no justification for asking a potential employee if they can handle the job based on presumed childcare responsibilities?

I thought it was compelling television and a very clever ruse by Sralan to get Katie to do the right thing for once in her life. I don't have a problem with questions being asked about childcare, as long as it is with a view to the employer being realistic about your other commitments and not as an excuse for discrimination. Children shouldn't be swept under the carpet, not to be talked about in the workplace. They are a huge part of a woman's life, WOHM or not. That has to be openly acknowledged. Far better to deal with the issue upfront than make assumptions that may well be wrong.

You are right to bring up the issue.... totally illegal!

Hmm, thinking about it though, DH was asked about his family responsibilities when going for a job with foreign travel/possible relocation. I think it is relevant tbh.

I have been interviewing mainly female staff for the last twenty years, and I've always understood that you "can't" ask women candidates for a job about childcare arrangements or anything to do with having children because it's sexual discrimination to do so. But I could be wrong. Perhaps it's just the fact that only women are ever asked those questions that would make it discrimination.

The questions were *not aimed at how they balance work and parenting roles, it was about how they would cope with relocation! I would have no difficulty at all with being asked this in an interview if it involved a move for our family.

DH has been asked this very question when interviewing for a job overseas. What's the problem?

I hate the thought that I should somehow hide the fact that I have a child if I go for another job. I am not prepared to separate my life and my work to that degree. The two are inextricably linked. Like I said, as long as it is the starting point for a grown-up discussion I would say it is essential that the employer understands, and tries to accommodate, a potential employee's family commitments.

But she just looked like a twit - who goes for a job which would involve relocating and worries about the how after they've got the job?

personally I think it was rather dogy questioning IMHO However I also understand the reasoning.

BUT unlike the rest of you I don't think Katie is this mega bitch you all think. I think she went in there to get a fab job and so she hadn't really realsied that she would defineatly be expected to relocate and was consequently put on the spot.

If I was in her shoes I would say 'yes you have my commitment' to a job, BUT I wouldn't sure able to say that if I was asked to relocate. If noone had said she would HAVE to relocate why would she have sorted all her childcare out in advance.

You are telling e that EVERYONE who goes for an interview ensures that every peice of childcare is in place incase they re asked to relocate, like hell. it is usually mentioned at 1st int, and tyhen given a chance to look at options.

everyone assumes that she knew the job would involve relocation, it doesn't have to, WWW wrked away from home in teh week that was OK. Others do it.

I think siralan was simply trying to avoid the legal issue by asking simon too. But he only lived in Clapham so he wouldn't hav eot move but siralan tried to make it look like he would!!

I think you can ask if the candidate has adequate/watertight childcare (not specific arrangements) but you cannot base your decision solely on the response, unless it is relevant to the position applied for. In this case it was relevant as the job required relocation, and the same question was asked of both male and female "candidates".

".... the same question was asked of both male and female "candidates".

unlikely to be relevant imo, because in reality childcare responsibilities tend to fall with the mother/woman.
therefore direct sex discrimination.
stupid question to ask in an interview because then if you want to turn that person down, it will be very hard to overcome the presumption that the disrciminatory question/response was the reason.
it stinks of bias.
(didn't see the programme though i should say)

good points crunchie - i think in a normal interview that's why I'd answer like I said in my op (regardless of whether or not it was technically true - I would just know that if I wanted the job enough I'd be able to sort it out) - but in a normal interview you have the opportunity to turn the job down after being offered it - that opportunity was quite clearly taken away from her - she was put under huge pressure to withdraw - and I do think it was pretty harsh.

I think it's perfectly to fair to ask this. If it hasn't been thought about, then the person isn't serious about the job and will not be reliable - that's a fair assumption to make I think. Once again, I really don't see why having a child has to be such a no-go area for discussion. The sooner business recognises and accepts that everyone has a life outside of work, which can sometimes impact on work, the better for everyone I say. Openness, honesty and fairplay are the way to get the best out of people, and it works both ways.

I don't suppose that Katie did think things through particularly, because she's not that sort of person (otherwise she might have thought twice about revealing herself as a complete and utter bitch to the nation) but I have to say the impression that I have is that her children are not in any way top of her list of priorirties (I've done babies anyone...) So maybe she did suddenly realise that she would have to take them with her and make new arrangements for them (I wondered earlier if actually they lived with their father anyway). But it seemed so incredibly unlike her - I think she thought it would make her appear "noble", and that she would cause a stir by turning Sir Alan down. as to whether he should have asked about the challenges of relocating, well it's not unreasonable is it. How anyone applying, and expecting to win, as Katie clearly did, could not think about the affect that it would have on their life is beyond me. Kristina didn't seem to find it hard to realise she wouldn't be able to styay in Harrogate did she?