Alan’s outburst
February 15, 2008
Following up on yesterday’s post about the gender pay gap, I’ve read a surprising bit of news about Sir Alan Sugar’s opinions on sex discrimination in the recruitment process.
Sir Alan thinks that it is Equality Law itself which hinders women’s chances of getting jobs – as employers cannot ask women things like “how would you cope with the pressure of balancing family life with work?” He reckons lots of employers still disregard applications before they even get to interview stage simply because the applicant is female. Apparently, employers would rather not employ a woman because they would be concerned about her family commitments interfering with work, but if employers could question them about how they would cope, then interviewees could give an explanation which would reassure the employer and increase the chances of them offering the job. To quote directly “if I am employing you to do a job, I want to be sure you can be there so I want to be able to ask what provision you have for children”.
This has got to be the most bizarre opinion I have heard in a long time – and quite worrying considering Sir Alan’s reputation and influence in the business world.
Firstly, his outburst indicates a completely old fashioned view of employment and social norms – assuming that only women have childcare commitments is something only a very narrow minded and quite frankly foolish employer would do. Yes, the majority of childcare responsibilities are probably still with mothers rather than fathers – as indicated by the report on the gender pay gap – but to only ask women about childcare provision in an interview is a bit if a wild assumption. My most recent request for flexible working arrangements under the statutory right has actually come from a man who needs to contribute to childcare arrangements in his family.
Secondly, the assumption that it is not possible to balance work and family commitments is a bit of an insult to many parents and carers, male and female, who do just that, and very well.
Sir Alan also implies that it is entirely the individual’s responsibility to make provisions for managing the dual responsibilities. If this is so, then why do lots employers introduce family-friendly arrangements such as flexible working, childcare vouchers and enhanced maternity / paternity policies to attract a wider range of people? If you only employ people who do not have obvious or potential commitments outside of work then you are not only indirectly discriminating against certain applicants, but you are greatly limiting the pool of talent to select from, and creating a workforce which is lacking in diverse work and life experience.
Considering my post from yesterday about the gender pay gap, this view from a prominent business figure is quite frightening. If there are lots of employers out there with this view, then what chance is there that the gender pay gap will be overcome?
I agree that there is still a lot of discrimination in the workplace which hinders many women’s chances of having a successful career. However, the idea that being able to ask women directly what their intentions are in terms of children will help to overcome this, is assuming that a) men don’t do childcare, b) all women have children, and c) you can’t have a job and manage childcare. This assumption, to me, is just ludicrous.
Comments
Got something to say?