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 .

I watched it last night and Sralan also questioned Simon about his living arrangements and if he was prepared to move for the organisation.

I don't personally think that there is anything wrong with asking the question because they knew that she was the main carer of her children as well as the sole breadwinner. I think it is fair that Sralan probed her about her commitment and don't forget, we only saw a condensed version of what actually transpired.

What I can't believe about that insufferable harridan is that on one hand she says that she did not get to where she is by playing Mummy and then on the other hand she is now saying that she withdrew because of her children.

Finally, the fact that she openly bragged that stealing someone elses husband was a measure of her ruthlessness just sums up the kind of person she is and I personally would hate to work with someone like that.

How they think anyone can live on £100k is another issue but I doubt I'll be very popular for saying that!

That is ignorant and insulting Xenia. Sorry, but there you have it.

Hmmm are you trying to be funny Xenia? Anyone catch Jeremy Vine and guests discussing this at lunch time? His female guest was very good (NOT Jenny Colgan!, the other one).

The winning candidate CERTAINLY wouldn't be able to buy the house the candidates stay in on £100k, no way. And that's what they imply at the beginning of the programme. Yeah right, a flat in Brentwood, maybe, a big detached house in Holland Park or wherever the house is, er, no.

It's a tricky one this.

With my tv producer's head on, I'm pretty sure that Christywisty is right, and that all of the candidates were asked these questions, just that not all of the answers were shown. And they were pretty clear about implying this - there was mention even in the case of Lohit that family responsibilities wouldn't be an issue. And you can bet your last pound that this programme has been past a whole raft of lawyers who have made sure that there is nothing illegal about this. They've used more of the questions in the case of Christina, and particularly Katie, because it's relevant to the unfolding story.

And it's not quite the usual interview situation - where it doesn't matter whether someone is offered the job and then turns it down. It was pretty clear to all and sundry that Katie wanted to win, not get the job, and these were tactics to flush her out.

But do I think it's morally justifiable? No, for all the reasons that everyone else has said - the programme makes it seem that childcare is solely womens responsibility, and these kind of questions are fair to ask at interview. So, good tv, lousy morals. No change there then....

oh Xenia, i do love you! "how can anyone live on 100K" im sure ive missed something as i havent read the whole thread. Tell you waht, you give me 100K to live on for a year and i'll let you know how i get on. It'l be a struggle but hey, i dont mind, for the good of society and all that..........

On a serious note, i would certainly be as mad as a snake if i was asked about childcare at an interview. If i were at the interview i would have that sorted,it would not be an issue - if they can't see that........i'd rather not have the job if the interviewers were that stupid!

xenia - re your first post (not the £100k one) for the first time ever, I think, I agree with you! huzzah. I think.

lol at the 100 k comment - really makes me laugh!!!! Bet you live on far less!!

I certainly have lived on less but remember £110k is taxed or a large big of it at 41% so it's not £100k really, nearly half gets given to Blair. Then a couple of sets of school fees is £20k, then if you work full time you need some after school care and you might want to live in more than a tent etc etc Doesn't go that far.

The school fees aren't essential though, are they? That's a choice you make. Try living on £20k whilst paying a mortgage and running a car and see how you get on.

in the world of xenia I believe school fees are essential. (along with ski-ing nad riding lessons)

Going back to WWW and Hatwoman's points, I think it's basically like Fillyjonk said. I am realistic about the likelihood of discrimination because I have a baby son. I'm not saying it's right, but it's a fact. So I have no problem in being given the opportunity to head off any wrong assumptions that might or might not be made. Of course in an ideal world there would be no such discrimination, but there is so I guess it's damage limitation.

And I really don't mind discussing my personal life ON MY TERMS of course. Like I said, I have no inclination to separate the work me from the real life me. We are one and the same.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that they also showed Sralan questionning Simon about his commitment and whether he would be prepared to uproot and move to somewhere else for the organisation. Sralan, imo, has a right to ascertain whether a candidate really understands what is involved in accepting a position for him. For someone who is a Global Brand consultant earning £90k, how Katie can claim that she had not organised her childcare arrangements prior to coming on the show is disingenuos and utter rubbish. She played to win and was exposed as a chancer. Good riddance.

If Tre had been considered for the last two, we would have seen this question asked of him also. It was clear that Tre had run his course so to show him being asked the question on the programme would have been nugatory.

If Alpha woman had been an Alpha male with the same personal commitments, the question would have been asked but I doubt people would be kicking up a fuss about it.

As for the comment about being able to live on £100k, and .

I was just playing around although most people do find as their income increases their "necessary" expenses do. Try living on the average wage in Congo. Anyone there would think UK state benefits some kind of lap of luxury.

Cost of living is relevant too, but there we go...

I think that a major difference between ordinary applications and the Apprentice is that people put all sorts of "notice me" things in their applications, which were probably more about getting selected for TV and appealing to Sir Alan than getting a job. So Kristina bringing up her son becomes important because it shows overcoming adversity (we all know Sir Alan likes that), Katie presumably put down her prowess in breaking up other people's marriage's because Sir Alan likes ruthlessness (and bitches are always fun to watch although fairly horrible to have to interact with), Tre made a big deal of his many offices (still can't quite figure that our, although he implied that it was all very simple, just that Paul couldn't/wouldn't understand - communication skills anyone!). In an ordinary application you don't get asked, and don't mention unless you are foolish anything outside of your abilities, skills and experience relevant to the job.

As an interviewer you shouldn't ask questions like what's the most important thing to you, because any parent is likely to say their children, on the other hand most of us would have the nouse to be able to respond to that sort of question in a work context.

Once raised however it is not unreasonable to explore issues - so if you state that you have caring responsibilities any employer is going to wish to explore what that might mean for the job.

Re the house, the implication of the Apprentice is that Sir Alan will take you under his wing and develop you so that in time you will earn a great deal more than £100k