Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 1st December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Not-so-sweet response to Sugar's 'outdated' remarks on women



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 February 2008
SIR Alan Sugar, the entrepreneur and presenter of The Apprentice, faced criticism yesterday after insisting that current equality laws make it more difficult for women to find jobs.
He claimed the rules which prevent employers from asking job applicants if they plan to get married and have children result in some companies simply throwing away women's CVs.

But Theresa May, the Conservative Party's women's spokeswoman, accused
him of having an "outdated" attitude.

She said: "It's about time that people like Alan Sugar stopped taking an outdated view of women in the workplace, stopped talking about why employing women is such a problem for business and started talking about why employing women is good for business. I would like to challenge Sir Alan to repeat his comments to some of our female (parliamentary) candidates."

Launching a report on the party's priorities for women yesterday, Ms May said that the persistence of a 17 per cent gender pay gap was wrapped up with the outmoded cultural attitudes reflected in Sir Alan's remarks.

She also accused the Labour government of failing women by neglecting to enforce laws introduced to protect them.

In an interview earlier this week, Sir Alan said that the possibility that a job applicant might take time off to have a child was "a bit of a psychological negative thought" in employers' minds and many would like to ask women about their plans.

"They would like to ask the question: 'are you planning to get married and to have any children?' " he said. "These laws are counter-productive for women, that's the bottom line. You're not allowed to ask, so it's easy – just don't employ them. It will get harder to get a job as a woman."

But Michelle Mone, the Scots entrepreneur behind the Ultimo lingerie line, last night insisted that women were often better employees after becoming mothers.

She added: "I really respect Alan Sugar and he has always impressed me. He has his opinion and I have mine and mine is that women make a valuable contribution to the workplace. In fact, I would argue that often women work better and harder after they have children."

Mary Senior, the assistant secretary at the STUC, said: "His comments underline why we need laws to protect women and other groups who may be marginalised by other unscrupulous employers who share this view.

"Women have lots to contribute to the workplace, so it's important that their skills are embraced."





The full article contains 420 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA...bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil leaders. 15/02/2008 05:25:49
Not-so-sweet response to Sugar's 'outdated' remarks on women
------------------------------------

Without women there would be no business. men supply the fertilizer , but the women grow the babies .

Its a level playing field . but for asshol*s like this Alan Sugar.

And what does this "Sir" mean.. Is it some pagan prefix ritual .

hey dudes just pay the bill and shut up.

GC
2

Samcafe,

Glasgow 15/02/2008 07:25:31
I think that is the issue Alan Sugar is raising, babies are important for all sectors of society why should business be the one carrying the can.
3

Charles Linskaill,

.Edinburgh 15/02/2008 08:16:30
Arrogant...Chauvinist... 'B'... 'Sir AS'...IS!
Who will run the business of the future if Women don't have children,?
Women are doing him the favours!
4

carrottop,

Dumfries 15/02/2008 08:34:47
If a footballer was thinking of taking time off to have a baby would you sign him or her? think not.
Sugar is correct that a woman in a job taking time off to have a baby is a big problem for the business and for a business 'person' its the business that comes first. Also the woman would have to be replaced while on (paid) leave so does it not make business sense to employ the replacement in the first place and avoid all the trouble.
The success of the business is crucial to all employees and maybe the way to go is to take on employees on short term roll on contracts (three years?) on the proviso that the employee will not create a situation that will necessitate them being absent from work for a lengthy period. An employer would be much more likely to employ a woman with this safeguard though in Dumfriesshire the issue is jobs for young men, not preferential treatment for women. Women can not get pregnant on their own or is that forgotten about, let the father support, the woman get an allowance and then she can enjoy being a mother which few women and children get the pleasure of experiencing.
Back to football, if your centre forward just walked off the pitch during a game would you have signed him knowing this?
5

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 15/02/2008 10:03:07
Alan Sugar is probably right.

In recent times they've legislated everything to the hilt and left no room for manouver.

If interviewers are not allowed to ask perfectly reasonable questions because of stupid, politically correct legislation, they will naturally hedge their bets and avoid the situation completely.

Who looses out? The women... who this daft legislation is supposed to "protect". When will the politically correct brigade ever learn?
6

JayDeeTee,

15/02/2008 10:19:26
"But Theresa May, the Conservative Party's women's spokeswoman, accused him of having an "outdated" attitude.
She also accused the Labour government of failing women by neglecting to enforce laws introduced to protect them."

Two interesting points there...First, why is there a government post (paid by the taxpayer) for a 'Spokeswoman for women'? Why is there not a government post for a Spokesman for Men?? Another example of one rule for us all and one for women.
And secondly - what laws have the Labour govenment put in place to protect women? Why is there a different set of laws for women? What are these laws in particular?
7

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 15/02/2008 12:02:39
#6:

Good point. It's about time that men started getting preferential treatment. The issue of department stores comes to mind here.

Every department store should by law be required to have a "Men's Area" to which no women are admitted. This area should consist of a bar that sells real ale with competitive prices, together with traditional bar snacks. Smoking must be permitted (in separate areas if required) and there should be telly rooms where things like rugby, football and motor racing can be watched.

Once the wife/girlfriend gets bored trying on the umpteenth cardigan, there should be a discounted service available whereby someone with a collapsable motorbike offers to drive them home and carry the wife's shopping to the car.
8

JG,

Fife 15/02/2008 13:20:10
I'm not sure that threatening Sugar with a confrontation with female parliamentary candidates would be all that scary. After all, who would notice if an MP or two (or two hundred, actually!) went missing? Unlike in a small firm trying to fill the space of someone who has gone off on maternity leave.
9

hassan i sabbah,

edinburgh 15/02/2008 15:45:10
If a male footballer was going to have a baby I would definitely sign him! Scientific first!
Carrotheid,mibbes its for the best ye just think about the fiba' aw this employment rights and women in the 21st century stuff is just beyond ye.sorry.
10

Allan(handofgod137),

15/02/2008 16:30:43
Hardly outdated, the simple fact is a business has only a limited pot of money to pay wages from, so if cash has to be set aside to pay non productive employees, then this reduces everyone's wages. A sensible compromise would be to pay women less if they expect paid maternity leave.
11

Reckless,

hffu 15/02/2008 19:08:28
wimin
12

Roberta Burns,

15/02/2008 22:06:07
I tend to agree with Alan Sugar. I think the labour government has gone too far in encouraging too much time off on maternity leave and, then there's the ridiculous paternity leave. Which makes me wonder why men are not asked if they intend getting married and starting a family!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should firms be doing more to help relieve the stresses of work for their staff?
Yes, it’s an excellent idea and can help a lot
No, with proper breaks there’s no need for it
No, stress motivates people to perform better

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.