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 .

still disagree... it should be illegal... to ask such personal question....

the others in the programme where not ask the question ie. Kristina

I don't think Siralan did anything wrong. The question only came up because Katie was looking so anxious after he said she was through to the final. Prior to that it wasn't an issue.

She hadn't thought it through, didnt't actually want the job but once she had the offer and was in a position to turn it down she realised it was too much of an upheaval. I don't see how else Siralan could have handled it.

It's perfectly possible to interview effectively using the same set of questions for each candidate. You just have to put some thought into them - ie ask quesdtions around what the job requires. As each person will respond differently and you can ask follow up questions the interviews themselves will all be different. Interviewing is a very flawed process anyway (not that anyone has found anything better to use!) but it is useful to use the same tool when interviewing large numbers of people and trying to come to an objective assessment of performance. Also if you have someone who then suspects discrimination and requests all the notes from the interview (which I have experienced) it puts you in a much better position to defend your decision if you have a transparent methodology.

We can't really assess the interviews on the Apprentice because of getting such an edited view, but they didn't look very similar (except that most of them, with the exception of Kristina, looked to perform poorly). However Katie was the one that said her children were the most important thing to her. Although that didn't appear to tally with the evidence she presented elsewhere in the programme, which was very much that Katie was the most important thing - not sure what game she was trying to play there, but she didn't look good.

I would really have liked to see her get her comeupance, so it's sad how things worked out - she seems to have come out thinking that she presented herself really well. Even Tre on reflection acknowledged that in truth he did have some flaws

Is it unreasonable for an employer to ask are you really committed to come and do this job, and to put some pressure on if the answer is not an immediate yes? I don't think he should have offered it to her given the doubts everyone had about her anyway (apart from the fact she was such a bitch)

I was fuming about the apparent illegaliy of the questions - but it is tv not exactly real life.
What got me going more was the double standards over Lohit (a gay man) being accused of not being ruthless enough, and Katie being pilloried for being too ruthless.
Gender stereotyping or what? They wanted someone who could cope with rivals being ready to 'cut their legs off', but apparently not if they're female...although to be fair Sir Alan himself didn't mark her down for that. Not saying ruthlessness is morally right, but the same standards should apply to gender/sexuality.

stenage all round - she had hr childcare organised for the show- so sdon't know why it was a problem for afterwards. Think it gave her a get out excuse.

She was horrid about mums & maternity leave so in away it's funny she walked away as she didn't have childcare sorted!!!

Also how could she not have researched the company????

i really do disagree, ladymuck.

The EOC are pretty on the ball with current leglislation, being a government organisation and all. But anyway, the SDA has not significantly changed since the mid 70s, IIRC. Obviously there are various relevant statutory instruments, like the flexible working regs, but they only serve to strengthen the SDA really. I am hoping I am not going to have to shuffle downstairs and dig out my books...(they are out of date anyway)

good practice is certainly to avoid asking about childcare arrangements at interview. In fact, good practice is to avoid asking whether a person even HAS children.

But if you do, you are opening yourself up to indirect sexual discrimination. Whether anything would COME of it is a different matter, of course, as with anything in this field.

You can't just discriminate against those with childcare responsbilities, because they tend to be women, thus it will tend to be indirect discrimination.

i think though, being filmed doing it is rather a bad move...

Fair enough Fillyjonk, though I think that you'll find that the EOC has a website.

I just find that most HR advisers recommend very strict guidance over and above what is actually required by the EOC code, which is fair enough. If you have poorly trained, less experienced people conducting interviews, then given the potential penalties under the SDA it is totally understandable that HR advisers take this view. But just because a question may not conform to "best practice" does not mean that it is "illegal". The EOC are very clear that you cannot ask about future family plans but it is possible to have an objective discussion about personal circumstances that impact the ability to perform the job. It is possible to ask the questions in such a way that is non-discriminatory. And if anything you are less likely to be found guilty of discrimination if you have asked certain pertinent questions than if you act on assumptions.

lol, i never quite trust whats on the internet...

I mean, really, there's relatively little in an employment law context where you can say "thats illegal". Its ALL matters of degree, shades of grey, really. In the real world, you'd really struggle to bring a sucessful case against someone for saying "do you have kids" at interview, and then not giving you the job.

My understanding is that yes of couse you can have an objective discussion about whether a person will be able to do the job properly. The classic example is always unsocial hours/short notice overtime. "The job involves unsocial hours at short notice. Will this be a problem for you?" . This isn't really likely to be a problem, though of course its slightly more complex than that...

What isn't ok, in my understanding, is to say "ah I see you are a woman with 3 children under 4. Please tell me all about their childcare arrangements so I can assess whether we should consider giving you a job.". .That, from my understanding, is more what happened on this tv program, and that is not objective.

But you said earlier that it was not legal?

As for the programme, your conclusions are interesting - I have a different reading on what he said especially as his questioning was around the fact that she currently lived in Exeter, and was she really happy to relocate - a question in effect asked of all 3 serious contenders. Her childcare arrangements came into play as he asked about support that she received and if this was from family would it continue. But the crux of the questioning was really whether she would be able to, and was prepared to, move, and actually I was amazed that she was still put into the final after giving a fairly dubious answer (her parents would move to be half way between her and her sister in Bournemouth).

But in terms of my earlier posts I do think that there is a myth perpetuated that certain questions are "illegal", when many of them are not, and at best you are trying to consider whether you are being discriminated against on grounds that are illegal or whether your human rights are being infringed.

BTW I think that you may find that the EOC website is more up to date than many legal textbooks on the subject.

Agree its fine to ask about a relocation, but to say, but what about your kids-no i think that goes too far. Its too specific. If she says "yes, i can relocate" then its irrelevant that she has dependants. He has his answer.

I didn't see the program. Did he ask ALL contestants, including men, about children? (actually i think this is a red herring-women will be less able to comply with such questions anyway so its indirect discrimination, but still)

of course the website will be more up to date, my textbooks date from around 2001! The whole landscape of discrimination law has changed since then. I have USED employment law since then, which is rather more pertinant. But there are good explainations of the SDA in my books, along with caselaw. I am pretty sure that there have been no actual ammendments to the SDA, only SIs which have an obvious effect on it.

oh if i said a question was "illegal" that was a slip, because that was the word being used on the thread. Its the wrong word to use in this context, IMO.

I've only read your OP Hatwoman but I was frothing at the mouth too at all the child related questions. Will read the thread now and post when I've done so!

Re Hatwoman "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"

I totally agree. Dh and ex dh hve NEVER been asked about childcare arrangements, never, never, never. Despite the fact that dh does FAR more childcare than I do during the working week wrt dropping and collecting them since I do longer hours.

And Squiffy, agree re "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 "

has anyone seen any other discussions of this?

mamhaf, wow I took the ruthlessness thing the opposite way to you. I got the impression all the blokes were giving her top marks for being ruthless and not marking her down at all. They all seemed quietly thrilled she was so cold and ruthless I thought

I'm sorry I just don't agree with most of the posters on this thread. It is the fact that you have children that leads an employer to think you'll be unreliable, and I wouldn't be happy to be asked that question if I didn't volunteer the information. BUT, once it is known that I have a child, I welcome questions about my childcare arrangements because it gives me the opportunity to demonstrate why I WON'T be unreliable and to decide for myself if the employer will be reasonable in circumstances when flexibility is required.

And yes I know I said I see myself as the main carer. Of course I wouldn't say this in an interview. But once I started the job I would aim to demonstrate that some flexibility will not impact on my ability to do my job. That is what I have done in my current job very successfully.

so what you're saying is that you'd rather set them straight than let them make conjectures about your ability to do the job?

Well thats fair enough, but IMO you have a right not to be in that situation in the first place.

No one asks men about their out of work activities. Thats why its unfair.

Personally I wouldn't disclose ANYTHING on a job application that wasn't relevant to the job. I don't put marital status, nor children, nor anything else really.

(am not sure how I'll explain the career break when I go back this time, but I have been doing a degree so...might work. Might just say I was "finding myself" ))

But Twinklemegan, the fact is that

a) plenty of us AREN'T the main carers
b) Even if we are it's not usually relevant to our ability to do the job
c) MEN DO NOT GET ASKED THIS!

Hatwoman my pc crashed when I tried to post it yesterday but I agree with everything you've posted no thsi subject.

hi www! I think i'd add d to your list (whihc I agree with) which is that even if they are it is often not out of choice - perpetuating this can perpetuate lack of choice for women. and if you like you could also add the flipside - ie that there are men who are not the main carer for whom that is also not choice

ALl i can say is every woman who does this is kicking the rest of us. Why are the children her responsibility not their father's and also why take part if you haven't sorted out your personal responsibilities whether they are dogs, ill parents, children etc.

Absolutely agree Xenia.

I think people have lost sight of the fact this was an hour programme that covered a day of 20 interviews plus the boardroom.

I can't believe any interview was less than an hour yet all we saw was a few minutes of each.

We don't know what questions the others were asked about their childcare arrangements.

Also it wasn't really about Katy's childcare arrangements, more her commitment to move to London that was in question.

I blame her for getting to that stage and saying that she doesn't know if she could get the childcare in place - doh, don't you think she should have had that all sorted prior to this stage so if she went through to the final she wouldn't have to raise it. Fancy saying she needs to make a phonecall - gives women a bad name by setting a bad example about what women with children may be like.

In this case - Alan correctly picked up on her doubts by saying for someone who is in the final you don't look that happy about it. He has very good observation skills. They then discussed the issues and he was right, she had doubts and clearly had no intention of reloating or anything in order to fulful the role. He had already put her in the final.

With regard to questions during a selection interview, no you shouldn't ask direct questions about child care as its irrelavant and potentially sex discrimination . No one asks about carer responsibilites for those who may have a sick parent living with them for example.