‘You refer to a scenario where there are two evenly matched candidates, with gender as the only distinguishing characteristic. I’m suggesting that in Sugar’s case the man would get hired – even if he’s the weaker candidate ‘

In his scenario how can the man be ‘weaker’ if they are evenly matched? Is this a sign of bias or just a logical error?

What’s his “background” got to do with anything? Criticise his views and actions as much as you like but his “background”?

KL would do better to run as in Independant again!

London will be in Safe Hands.

Not much.

Which conveniently ignores the other part of my post:

“Even though there is a distinction between women who do/don’t have kids, such a hiring policy would mean either the women having to sign a ‘no pregnancy’ clause of some sort, or they wouldn’t be hired in case they get broody. Still, it’d be his loss if the talent goes elsewhere.”

You refer to a scenario where there are two evenly matched candidates, with gender as the only distinguishing characteristic. I’m suggesting that in Sugar’s case the man would get hired – even if he’s the weaker candidate -because he can’t get up the duff. From a ‘business perspective’ not hiring any fecund women at all would make perfect sense as you’d have no pregnant staff or worries about maternity leave cover. How much ‘business experience’ does one have to have to take the view that fertile women are too much of a damn risky nuisance to employ, regardless of how talented they might be because they (and their partners) sometimes want to perpetuate the species?

Still, such an approach does offer opportunities for older (post-menopausal) female workers. Maybe Sugar could go for the grey vote and employ a lot of over-50 women if he did ever become Mayor.

Pesto, I can tell from this comment that you have never run a business. (Please tell me I’m wrong.)

It is necessary to make decisions based on what is in the best interests of the business you are charged with running. In the absence of any other factors, you will, therefore, select a man before a woman of child bearing age because men do not have the disruptive propensity to give birth to children.

The effect of employment legislation in this area only makes the correct business decision even easier to reach.

Sugar sounds like someone who wants to hire men mainly because they don’t give birth and want/choose to have time off work to spend with the new-born kid. Even though there is a distinction between women who do/don’t have kids, such a hiring policy would mean either the women having to sign a ‘no pregnancy’ clause of some sort, or they wouldn’t be hired in case they get broody. Still, it’d be his loss if the talent goes elsewhere.

He treats women collectively because the government does and hands out entitlements to women which their employers are required to discharge. Perhaps the entitlements are important (I don’t happen to think children are a public good, but I know many do). But if they are, they should be implemented transparently so that they don’t effect the labour market and make hiring women of childbearing age a minefield for employers (making them more likely to hire men if they can get away with it).

I am told by a Danish friend that this is how the entitlements are structured in Denmark (the state providing them overtly rather than channelling them through corporations), which as a consequence, can afford a less regulated labour market compared to ours.

Where can one find out what his business is actually worth

“Sugar has also argued that prospective employers should be allowed to discriminate against women in the job selection process by questioning their plans to get married and have children and making them explain what childcare arrangements they’d put in place.”

Sounds reasonable to me. It means that those women who aren’t intending to have children and wish to prioritise their career can gain an advantage. It means that you treat people as individuals with their own life plans rather than as a collective block with exactly the same interests.

…maybe – but as soon as those life plans change to involve children for the 50% of the population who physically give birth to them, Suralan gets to treat them as a collective block he can fire/refuse to hire as he sees fit. Oh, and maybe he can’t be arsed to offer childcare support/resources so he can hire the perfect candidate who happens to have pre-school-age kids. Maybe he’ll be charging employees for using the toilet next, to keep down costs.

I would also add in the last series of The Apprentice, Sugar saw fit to award the prize to a man that had been caught out comprehensively lying on his CV and application? Caught out, I may add, by Sugar’s own hand-picked screening team. Given the current Mayor’s dubious appointments, could this be seen as (yet) another warning bell?

It will be funny to see the new series, to see if they still say his business is worth £600m.

What background did Livingstone have – and how successful could he be drinking whiskey at 10am in the morning?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-509891/Whisky-drinking-Livingstone-faces-fresh-scandal-aide-quits-star-freebie-trip-Africa.html

Please enlighten me?

Sounds reasonable to me. It means that those women who aren’t intending to have children and wish to prioritise their career can gain an advantage. It means that you treat people as individuals with their own life plans rather than as a collective block with exactly the same interests.

I see your problem right there. Given the suspect provenance of much of Gilly’s output I’m not sure I’d get too worked up on this. Anyway, as far as I know Sir Alan hasn’t appeared on Have I Got News For You yet, which is where London runs its primary elections.

There’s the other point that running London isn’t merely a matter of politics but hands on ability, where Sugar might well score over Boris, judging by today’s report on the response to the snow last month. Inculcating a public service ethos may be a bit more of a problem.

Doesn’t sound like the real-world to me. Most people work in a non-unionised environment.

Livingstone was successful because he played the role of Govt critic and used he’s genial personality to gather centre votes. He was also helped by the Tories twice choosing a scouser, who people remember more for his personal life than his political achievements.

With Labour likely to move further to the Left, KL will be unable to pretend to stand up to their leadership. He will, once again, be a focus for the hard-left, despised by most Londoners. Labour’s biggest hope is Boris becoming a disaster or getting a leading post in Cameron’s new Govt.

He’ll feel right at home with Purnell and Mandelson then.