View Full Version : Alan Sugar is not so sweet
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080326/tuk-sugar-women-bosses-can-be-ruthless-6323e80.html
Why should an employer need to know if you wish to start a family, what a bleeding cheek. Men need to know that they are as responsible for childcare issues as women, they are also entitled to time of when their children are born. Are we still in the dark ages...times have changed. Women can have it all if they want. Grrr[evil]
My ex and I once had a discussion about whether he would become a house husband if I earned enough to keep us comfortably off, he informed me no as childcare was a womens responsibility. This even applied to finding a babysitter if we were going out for an evening. I divorced him soon after. (not just because he was a male chauvinist pig)[evil]
Why shouldn't Sugar have the right to ask such a question?
If he has two women of equal qualifications and ability and he asks them both if having a family soon is a possibility and one answers yes, then why shouldn't he consider employing the one that says no. After all, he has to find a replacement when the one opting to have a family goes off after 6 months then takes maternity leave after she produces.
The article states that he thinks women bosses are even harder on this than men.
If I was him I would do the same and stuff discrimination laws...
Boozeburglar
26-Mar-08, 20:42
Well at least if an interview panel is allowed to ask such a question they can guarantee one thing.
They will be able to make sure they get good liars on board, but nothing more.
They will still face the Law if they try to sack or demote the woman once she does start a family.
:)
So cancel the human race, women who want to work cannot have children. How bleedin naive is that?
Whitewater
26-Mar-08, 23:56
It is perhaps a bit unjust to ask any newly married female during a job interview if she intends to start a family, and the person who asks such questions must also be very naive, if the person really wants the job they are going to answer no. What does the employer do then? They may perhaps insist a contract is signed to that effect, but it is not legal, it become discrimination and not acceptable under current Health & Safety at work Laws. There is always a risk with female empoyees, married or otherwise,that they are going to become pregnant. As an employer that is the chance you have to accept, but I have to admit that some empoyers will not accept that risk, therefor they will always employ a male, provided the vacancy is unisex. The exceptions being a current female who has been with company for some time and is going for promotion, or an older lady who has a grown up family.
Why shouldn't Sugar have the right to ask such a question?
If he has two women of equal qualifications and ability and he asks them both if having a family soon is a possibility and one answers yes, then why shouldn't he consider employing the one that says no. After all, he has to find a replacement when the one opting to have a family goes off after 6 months then takes maternity leave after she produces.
The article states that he thinks women bosses are even harder on this than men.
If I was him I would do the same and stuff discrimination laws...
Why should he pick the one who is not going to have children, if they are equally qualified. That purports that a woman who chooses to have children is a lesser mortal which is clearly not the case. How on earth would Margaret Thatcher have got to be PM if that view was generally shared. (Not that I was a fan of the woman but respected her strength and leadership qualities)
Boozeburglar
27-Mar-08, 14:30
If I was him I would do the same and stuff discrimination laws...
Can we not stop them voting as well then, so we get proper politicians, not just the ones who are cute?
:)
Why should he waste time and energy on the one that is going to be absent from work after getting pregnant?
He should not be criticised for ensuring he gets best value for his money from someone he employs. Just as a company may penalise a member of staff for taking sick leave during their first 6 months of employment by docking pay. He can stipulate what he likes within reason. I happen to think this is reasonable.
I think maggie was past her 'best by date' by the time she became PM - 53?
northener
27-Mar-08, 14:54
Employers couldn't give a monkeys whether a potential employee is male, female or otherwise.
What they are interested in, as MadPict has pointed out, is the best return on their time and investment in that person. This is business not the Social bleedin' Services. Although the government would like to see business becoming responsible for all aspects of care for their employees[disgust]
If someone chooses to start a family, well good luck to them. But don't expect firms to train up employees just to see them sail out of the door because they want to play happy families.
The idea that we can all have families and successful careers is a myth put about by those whose careers are flexible and can work around odd hours and days. Invariably office based jobs.
Many, many businesses rely on production-line style teamwork to achieve a common result. Taking one key player out will result in the team not functioning as it should. For people to drop in and out, at will, is not going to create a successful business.
I'd hazard a guess that those who cannot see this simple truth are employed by companies and not running their own business with their own hard-earned cash......
.
northener
27-Mar-08, 15:00
Why should he pick the one who is not going to have children, if they are equally qualified. That purports that a woman who chooses to have children is a lesser mortal which is clearly not the case. How on earth would Margaret Thatcher have got to be PM if that view was generally shared. (Not that I was a fan of the woman but respected her strength and leadership qualities)
Nobody is implying that women who choose to have children are in any way 'lesser'.
The key word is 'choose'.
They 'choose' family. I, as a person who has worked all his life to create businesses with my own money, 'choose' to employ people who I know will be there when I need them.
When it's your own money and house that's on the line, you may find your opinion shifting slightly....if you want to still be in business in a couple of years time, that is.
.
Can we not stop them voting as well then, so we get proper politicians, not just the ones who are cute?
:)
Cute politicians? Where are they hiding them? [lol]
Boozeburglar
27-Mar-08, 15:46
Siān Berry is not so well hidden, and she is even 'cuter' up close!
http://sianformayor.org.uk/index.php
:)
northener
27-Mar-08, 17:32
Siān Berry is not so well hidden, and she is even 'cuter' up close!
http://sianformayor.org.uk/index.php (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://sianformayor.org.uk/index.php)
:)
Suddenly, I feel the urge to join the Green Party....
.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.