Alan Sugar's words and a Time's article I read recently about long working hours just show the path the UK wants to take to build the society you all Britons want.
Career
Results
Money
Greed
The majority's opinion is that it is alright to penalise those who just want to have a life out of the work place: women who want to become mothers, men who want to be father to their children, men and women who want to spend time with their significant other.
I have rejected jobs in the Uk because the only satisfaction I would get would be projects finished and invoiced, being life in London so boring, as the CIO in this big british company put it when he interviewed me.
Way to go, United Kingdom. Make as much money as you can, leave no children behind you to ennjoy the inheritance, wander through broken marriages and unmet expèctations. Care Homes will be full of Top male managers and females over-achievers roting to death, alone, and drapped in fine cashemer.

Emilio, Madrid, Spain

Being a single working mother of two Ifind some peoples remarks offensive. if Ididnt work, I would a person living on benefits and would be slated for living off tax payers money, if I work ,I am penalised for having children.
If my children are ill I WILL take time off work because I have on choice, but Iwould never use my children as an excuse to skive people will do this if they want, wheather they have kids or not.

kelly, london,

I think Sir Alan Sugar is right. Having past experiences with women who have children use more excuses to leave work early and take more time off.

Fabeya, London,

Sir Alan Sugar is right. Women bosses ARE much more likely to discriminate against mothers. As a working mother I have had first hand experience of this and I put it down to the fact that to be a top female boss in the UK you have to sacrifice your family and when you see women who work for you trying to find a balance - boot goes right in! 'Why should you have it all - when I haven't' attitude.

Nichshee, Sheffield, UK

If women are asked about childcare etc then men should be asked too. Fair's fair. Or are men not expected to look after their children?

charlie, liverpool,

Can anyone cite a single example of a woman with a 6 month-old baby who has ever been fired for poor job performance? Is that because they are all stellar employees, or for some other reason?

Nick, Rotherham, UK

While I disagree with Alan Sugar for the most part, he is correct when he points out that women bosses are more likely do discriminate, most especially because they feel they can get away with it.

The spokespeople from business women's organizations are in denial. The plain facts are that such discrimination against women in the workplace isn't gender based, so much as it is a sign of a selfish, controlling boss who expects employees to live for the job. Women are not better bosses or leaders, they can be as good or as bad. It's part of the reason women like myself stopped calling ourselves feminists, it's become an elitist movement by and for women who live above the glass ceiling. Not relevant for the rest of us mere mortals.

Marie, Braintree, MA, US

Childcare and private life has nothing to do with work...this personnal life.
Lucky for us,there are the EU employement law.
Why not ask to men if they think having children too,bse Sir Alan Sugar does not seem to know that they have the right to take "father leave"as well.
He is so "has been"with his views of family and women.
We are in 2008,not the 1950.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Marie, London, UK

If women don't have children, there won't be anyone to employ be it male of female in future. It's quite a shame that we look upon children as a kind of hindrance. And then in the next article we cry over european nation growing older and older.

Olga, Ufa,

I agree with his views partially because it has true. Some women do use kids as an excuse and it irritates the hell out of everyone and other woman like myself, but it seems we are just too polite to say it.

I think though women should address this problem with other women and not feel guilty about addressing it.

At work I find that many women with children used their children as an excuse to come in late and leave early. I don’t think it’s fair & ultimately we all suffer especially those without children as we’re the ones picking up the slack.

Gail, London, UK

As usual, Alan Sugar is bang-on.

Centuries old principles of law have been sacrificed at the altar of Diversity. Take presumption of innocence until proven guilty - an employee doesn't have prove she has been discriminated against, the employer now has to prove they haven't discriminated... It's like nailing jelly to a wall - you might as well write the cheque straight off - so what do rational managers do?

Let's get real. Minorites, whether they are female, ethnic, disabled or gay, nowadays come with a package of 'rights' which can cost a company dearly if the employee fancies pushing his/her luck. Any awake manager needs to factor in this risk which means in reality the minority candidate has to be substantially better than the male, white, straight Brit. Level playing field? No. The British way? No. What the manager wants? No. Does the law encourage discrimiation? Absolutely yes.

Yet another example of our legislators awesome skill with the law of unintended consequences..

Ian Mac, Kew, UK

I agree with this. Partly because it has bugged the hell out of me that women use childcare as an excuse for poor work, for days off and for going home early when their colleagues - both male and female - are still working.

It's not all women with children by a long shot, but one or two out there do use their children as an excuse for poor performance, and you're left being completely unable to say or do anything, even though you know they are taking advantage.

Emma, Manchester, Lancashire

The reason women should not be asked these questions is that it is simply bad business. There is a significant cost, in terms of the impact on the relationship between the employer and the employee, but what is the real benefit?

Women may be determined not to have children but suddenly change their minds. They may plan to have children but find out they have fertility problems.

Employees of either sex might plan to be dedicated careerists, but find that the birth of children impacts them in unforeseen ways. A child, spouse or parent may become ill and much more dependent without notice. A messy divorce or road traffic accident might impact one's workplace effectiveness for years without any indication it was coming.

The simple truth is that anyone who can really predict the future has no need of employment in the first place. Asking (potential) employees to read crystal balls just raises the temperature without generating any information.

John H Woods, Stratford-upon-Avon, UK

Sir Alan hits the nail on the head as usual and is castigated by those who want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that women bosses totally support their "sister employees" in their child bearing / rearing choices.
Women bosses have a far clearer insight into potential female employees mindsets and are perfectly capable of making the "ruthless" decision to not employ someone if they think that once they have spent a lot of money on training them, they may then disappear to have babies and may well not even return to work. Alan Sugar is simply being realistic.

David, London,

That's it Sir Alan, tell it like it is. No sitting on the fence for you when you asked a tricky question.

If only our politcal masters had such bottle.

steve, Auckland,

I am 100 per cent in agreement with Sir Alan Sugar on his attitude to EU employment rules.

I cannot see why women should not be asked, and be required to truthfully answer, any question regarding their plans for having children and childcare, especially when any length of training for a particular job is required to be offered by the employer. I have always been an employee but It seems to me that these days everyone has rights, all responsiblities are on the employer.

Patricia Thornton, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria