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 .

but he offered her the job (or as good as), so surely it is irrelevant in a certain sense, to him it ultimately didn't matter as long as she said it wouldn't. It was then her choice to stand down. I thought he was quite clever actually

(although am not normally on the side of women's personal lives being brought into career situations and did find it laughable when he asked posh boy about getting to work from Clapham)

She was the only one with childcare responsibilities, but they were all asked about relocating. I don't think she was put under huge pressure - I just think she played it like the drama queen she is. She loved watching Simon and Kristina squirm, and thinks she has won anyway.

I did see the prog and I was shocked that the women both got grilled on teh kids issue in the interviews. I always understood that you weren't allowed to ask women about that in interviews. Perhaps I'm being naive seeing as I work for a right on public organisation.

Why shouldn't women's personal lives be brought into the career situation? Or anyone's for that matter? Why do we have to separate life and work to this degree?

Regardless

I think she did a grave grave disservice to women in the work place.

We want to be equal, these days we nearly always are perceived as equal. But you are either a Mummy or a worker.

If you want a job, you cover off all bases re childcare. You do not look around corners re sick days connected to poorly children, you cross those bridges as you come to them.

But you certainly cover off all the basic childcare issues, you do not when pursuing £100k a year say to any prospective employer. Mummy and Daddy might, might move halfway.

She looked half- baked IMO.

Sorry to bang on, but actually I'm generally rather offended if I'm not asked about my DS, like he doesn't exist or something. Some realism is required urgently.

I'll be happy to be asked about my childcare arrangements when men are routinely asked the same - with the underlying assumption that having children has the same impact on men as on women. ok so in this case non of the male candidates had children but if you really think that had any of the men had children sralan would have got beyond assuming the kids had zero relevance to his capability to do a job then you're kidding yourself

It's not a proper interview, though, it's a TV show.

But most cases that's probably true hatwoman. I'm not afraid of being probed on this because I know I will not take advantage, and if an employer is not prepared to be a little flexible when needed then I don't want to work for them.

that's a good point unquietdad

I have started a thread - here if anyone's interested.

I agree with Bree, definitely half-baked. When DH went for his job, I doubt very much he'd have got it if his answer to "can you relocate?" was "Er, um, I haven't actually totally had the conversation with my wife, I'll have to go and phone her to check"

But Tre has a child and was not asked about his childcare arrangements. I hated the stereotypical views portrayed in the programme tonight - though I do think Christina's experience is somewhat typical - have child, have job, but wait until after child has grown up to go for the really big opportunities and focus solely on your career. It is impossible to give 100% to a career and 100% to bringing up your children IMO (although i do recognize that it is perfectly viable and acceptable to employ someone else to do teh hands on child rearing role before WOHM's disagree with me)

Twinklemegan I disagree completely with your statement that

"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"

they are actually a huge part of a parent's life, WOHM or not.

Well yes you're right of course Prufrock, I said woman because it is women here who are implying we shouldn't mention them.

I'm sure one reason Tre wasn't asked was because he wasn't a serious contender. There are male managers in my workplace who work from home for a day a week to take care of children. There are loads of men I work with who always have time off at half term to help with childcare. I just don't see these problems that some of you seem to see.

tm - see my response on the other thread.

you see I didn't even know tre had a kid. bloke has kids? not relevant. woman has kids? how on earth will you manage love?

I think the fact that Katie is a single mum, that she has two very small children, and that she would be required to relote from Dorset/Devon to London probably is relevant. She was a very smooth operator, and I'm sure would have found a new nanny or whatever she needed if she wanted the job. But the point was none of them were sure that she did. I think it was a very thin pretext for her to walk out, and looked very out of character.

It was totally illegal but it made good telly, that was why it was asked. Someone like Katie would never get a decent job in the real world but it made good telly to keep her in. Same with Tre. None of that shocks me, but what really floors me is that people on this thread think it reasonable to be asked about their childcare arrangements because 'they' are the primary carers.

LOL, Twinkle, just wait till Xenia logs on.

In the real world, if you aren't up to the hours/travel/demands of a job you shouldn't be sitting in front of an interviewer in the first place. If you are in that interview then it is frankly an insult to be questioned about anything that is not relavent to the role in question - be it childcare, religion or a predeliction for dogging. I wouldn't even pass 'GO' on my way direct to the tribunal, if anyone so much as dared raise my parental responsibilities at an interview. And it's nothing to do with shame and everything to do with bias on the part of the interviewer. If such questions get asked you don't get through the underlying 'concern' by 'responding satisfactorily to their questions'. You do it by dragging them through the courts until they learn their behaviour isn't acceptable in todays' society. Those kind of questions are akin to asking somebody with a colostomy bag if they think they're up to a job because may be held up in meetings and not able to go to the toilet

I have to say that i don't think it is unreasonable to be asked in an interview "IS the family happy about moving?". She made the big deal out about her parents looking after the kids!

but she'd raised it in her interview first , I don't think she was actually asked directly. She set herself up as this career driven , family second driven woman and it wasn't the case if she hadn't followed it through to its logical conclusion and got a workable system in mind - be it parents, nanny or whatever. Nor did is seem as if the children's father had any say. Agree it was her game plan to get to the final, get known and she'd quit - they simply saw through her .

Aquiffy, didn't they say the other "problem" they had with her was the fact she already had a job earning what Sir Alan was offering, so couldn't understand why she would what to shift for no extra?

Sorry, Squiffy!

Ah but he didn't refuse her on that basis, he used it to get her to demonastrate her lack of commitment. I think he got around a sticky and poossibly illegal poinyt very neatly and reasonsably.

I think the reason Tre wasn't asked was because the decision had already been made to fire him.

I don't agree that in reality childcare responsibilties usually fall to the mother, that certainly isn't the case for me. My dh and I share the responsibilty, including when our dd's are ill.