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 .

squiffy - Apprentice and Katy aside - excellent post. Your response to being asked - compared with what I said mine would be - clearly indicates you're made of sterner stuff than me! but hallelujah that someone seems to have got my point!

I think she was thoroughly obnoxious and was glad to see her go BUT i think she assumned she wouls have to relocate to London and said she had discussed moving to South Coast etc but then he through in a googli and said it would be Brentwood....wrong side of London whole new board game.

I also think as a working mum of 3 that i was isulted by the questioning of the women their attitudes seemed to be out of the ark and there will be stupid people out there who think well if it's OK for SA on TV then its OK for me to take those attitudes with my employees

Twinklemegan - it isn't that we shouldn't mention them or feel the need to hide them - it's that childcare shouldn't be seen as a reason to decide whether to give someone a job or not. You are being interviewed about your ability to do the job, in the workplace, within work hours - not on the various arrangements that enable you to do that. It's fine for a parent to bring it up and ask an employer about flexible working, etc, but the best practice (of not asking women - or anyone - about childcare) is based on a long evidenced track record of discrimination against women because of prejudice that they will be unreliable etc.

She must have known it would be Brentwood - that's where his operation is based.

It was Katie who made the childcare sound like a problem. She could have just said "no, it'll be no problem" and moved swiftly on.

I think Tre wasn't asked this question because he wasn't being potentially offered the job.

Yes, agree Tre was not asked because he was a gonner already. Also, Sralan's sidekick, Margaret was some top lawyer so I'm sure he had a lot of legal advice from her and the BBC legal team before posing those questions to Katie and Kristina.
Agree with some posters that it was a question of commitment to relocate rather than commitment out of child-care.
It wasn't really about 'can you do this job if you have children' but more of 'do you really want to compromise your children's lives just for this job'.
I thought he was very shrewd to draw out the admission from Katie that she was not as cut out for the job as she made herself out to be. Very clever.

There are a huge number of steps between asking questions about childcare, and being guilty of sexual discrimination in offering a job. I don't think that Squiffy's approach does actually reflect what society wants at present. And I think that it is a myth that you have to ask candidates the same questions - they will have all given certain information on their CVs and applciation forms.

Take a situation closer to home - if you are hiring a nanny and an applicant who lives 200 miles aways applies - you can of course ask how they plan to manage to be at your house by 7 each morning. And if they have small children then again it would be relevant to know whether or not they had plans to cover their childcare requirements. Would you really want a law in place to prevent you from asking those questions?

on the topic of Sralan - I don;t think he was shrewd at all. I think he looked at Simon and Kristina, having already said that katie was staying, and thought "shit, I just got this wrong" he had an uneasy feeling abuot katie but it was too late to withdraw the offer. I think he looked totally like he was back-tracking on his own judgment.

Ladymuck, unfortunately it is not a myth that you have to ask candidates the same questions, although I don't know if it is the law or just enforced practice. I was recently involved in recruiting someone for our department and work and was very frustrated that the diktak was that we had to ask everyone the same questions. It is standard practice in many public sector workplaces AFAIK.

its NOT legal, even if all candidates are asked it

because childcare generally affects women more, so its seen as indirect discrimination

ALSO there ARE laws in place protecting parents, and asking this question could be seen as him trying to avoid employing parents to get round discimination law.

its bloody appalling, i hope there were complaints. but my god its a vile program ANYWAY.

Then you're doing crap interviews. Everyone will have had different experiences in life. You can't work out whether they are suitable for a role and whether they will fit into your organisation by asking a standard 20 questions.

You are on dangerous legal ground if you ask questions that are irrelevant to whether you can do a job, so eg you can't ask a women whether she is planning to have a family in the future. But you can ask whether in their existing circumstacnes they are able to do the job.

Very relieved to read this thread (have just posted on the other Apprentice thread before spotting this one). Glad I'm not the only one fuming . There WAS an opportunity to ask Tre about childcare arrangements (his wife could be working full time and travelling for all we know) before it got down to the remaining three and, in this day and age, thought it was a disgrace that the BBC didn't make sure this happened/was shown. Blatant sexism in my view. Not that Katie (or that Scottish woman on the review prog afterwards) helped the cause of working mothers .... .

and actually I don't agree that you CAN ask a nanny those questions, tbh

Not morally- its none of an employers business. they need to know, will the employee show up on time and do a competant job? That is all.

But legally-nannies are employees just like any other. Yes they often find it harder to follow through on their rights but...its a bit crap to play on that really.

as I say, there are laws in place to protect parents anyway, some of it under the sexual discrination stuff, and this applies to whether or not someone is given a job in the first place so it would be highly unwise to put yourself in a situation where such a thing could be alleged by asking about childcare.

I think that siralan was peeved because Katie didn't look as happy as he thought she should be when he told her that she was in the final.

I also agree with those who say he was asking about commitment to relocate and take up the job rather than childcare. I really don't think that siralan could care less what anyone's childcare arrangements are so long as they do a good job.

It is illegal to ask this sort of question to a woman.

It is NOT the emplyoyers business which kind or arrangements a future employee has.

As long as she turns up to work, does her work well and performs... that;s it!

there you go

scroll down to "I have two children under the age of 5."

following Katies comment that maternity leave was aload of bull & her comments on mums in general I have no symapthy for her - Sir Alan outsmarted her.

she also didn't want the job - just to win.

Sorry Fillyjonk - I still disagree, based on the current Sexual Discrimination Act. You can ask the questions if personal circumstances could impact the job but you need to have an objective discussion. You can't just not offer a woman a job just because she has children, but you can still ask about her arrangements if they could impact her job (and you can ask a man the same question of course). You can't ask about whether a woman is going to have children though, because that is irrelavnt as to whether she can do the job, and is biased to sex. It is sexual discrimination that it illegal. So it is perfectly OK to discriminate against parents provided you don't just discriminate against mothers.

And frankly give that Katie was offered the chance to go through to the final it is hard to see how she could have a claim of sexual discrimination.

firstly, it's not real - it's just telly. After all how many interviews have you been to where the interviewer could dredge up people from your past - ie simon's previous tennants etc?

Secondly, we don't know that the same questions weren't asked of all candidates. The programme is edited in such a way that we only see certain bits of it - the bits which will provoke the most discussion.

As far as I saw it the question was about relocation not about childcare, and it's a valid question. if you live in devon and you're applying for a job in Essex then location is an issue, especially if you're expected to start next week - commuting such a distance is not an option.

ladymuck it's not as simple as "it is perfectly OK to discriminate against parents provided you don't just discriminate against mothers." the law protects against indirect discrimination as well as direct discrimination. it's not true that you can discriminate against those with child-care responsibilities - precisely because this group comprises a disproportionate amount of women - discriminating against this group is thus indirect discrimination against women.

Ladymuck "Then you're doing crap interviews. Everyone will have had different experiences in life. You can't work out whether they are suitable for a role and whether they will fit into your organisation by asking a standard 20 questions."

I KNOW!!!! makes me . PC gawn maaaadddd!

You can't ignore the fact that women are more likely to be the child carers and that sr alan was actually very human and sensitive in his dealing with this issue. (quite unusual for him). I am SOOOO p*d off with folk searching around for the next minority group to defend or the next potential legal media-fest. Poeple need to get on with it and stop looking for injustices where there are none.
Katy clearly didn't want the job as, had she been serious, she would have discussed the massive issue of uprooting her children BEFORE coming on the show. A total player. And a really badly dressed and made-up one at that.

PS nice to see her with a decent haircut on the after show!

Hatwoman - I didn't say that you could discriminate against those with childcare arrangements - I said you could discriminate against parents. Statistically I would say that the latter group isn't disproportinately female. If I have two female nannies applying for a post I am allowed to turn one down on the grounds that she has young children and I am unconvinced that she has appropriate childcare arrnagements. It may not be the best decision, but it is not illegal.

I know you didn;t say "those with child-care responsibilities" but - as your nanny example illustrates - it's implied. you're not really talking about all parents in general, you're talking specifically about the ones who have responsibility for their children.

beyonceen - your post makes me feel quite sad. I get "SOOO p*d" off with people who are too blind to see injstice where there is some. I am also quite offended by the idea that someone who raises these issues, and contributes to debate about them is looking for injustice where there is none, and needs to "get on with it". I spend my entire life "getting on with it". as for "looking for the "next minority group" to defend" forgive me for thinking discrimination is something worth doing something about.

Totally agree Hatwoman! Well said!