Alan Sugar has some interesting things to say about the equality laws – and in part, I agree with him. In making the point that interview panels should be allowed to ask prospective female candidates about their childcare arrangements and possible pregnancy, he is merely articulating the worries that many small businesses face. That is, do they employ a woman of child bearing age and take the risk of the costly maternity leave or child related absences or do they play safe and employ a man or older woman? It would be foolish to think that employers don’t reject women for these reasons – they just aren’t open about it. So in that respect, I can understand Sugar’s point. We should be open about it – assuming, that is, we go along with laws that penalise small businesses, making employing a particular sector of the population unaffordable for them.
However, sitting on the other side of that interview desk, I don’t take too kindly to a potential employer poking about in my personal life. I have always kept the professional and the private separate and ne’er the twain shall meet. I expect interview questions to relate to the job and not my personal affairs. Okay, so I’m not a woman, so won’t be asked. But, in that position, I’d be inclined to respond to the effect that I am here for a job. I will manage my affairs to ensure that I meet my contract of employment. I am not prepared to discuss my personal life beyond that.
As I said, interesting, but if we didn’t have a plethora of silly equality laws, we wouldn’t be faced with the unexpected consequence of sectors of the population being denied work because of the extra burden they will place on their potential employer.
“I will manage my affairs to ensure that I meet my contract of employment. I am not prepared to discuss my personal life beyond that.”
Beautifully articulated. Now can you get a politician to sign up to this?
“I will manage my affairs to ensure that I meet my contract of employment. I am not prepared to discuss my personal life beyond that.”
Very true, but the contract of employment has to conform with the laws of the land and must therefore allow for maternity leave which imposes extra costs on an employer. Governments are very good at handing out benefits which someone else has to pay for.
Which is why I partially agree with Sugar. I understand completely where he is coming from. That, unfortunately, clashes with my personal desire to keep my personal life private – or it would if I was a woman of child bearing age 😉