# TV3's The Apprentice, Bill Cullen & Brightwater



## lazing (8 Dec 2009)

I am making a complaint against “the Apprentice” screened on TV3 on Tuesday (8th Dec ‘09). I additionally am complaining about Brightwater Recruitment, which has been involved throughout the series, and also to Bill Cullen who presided over the interview process.

I am a periodic candidate for interview, and I would be appalled to be treated in a manner similar to that which the contestants on the Apprentice were treated. Given this is a popularly watched programme, and we are now in a recession, I believe the programme (with Brightwater Recruitment's participation) may set a precedent as to how candidates can be interviewed in the future. 

As I understand it the Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2004 prohibit discrimination in recruitment and employment generally on nine grounds: an individual's sex, marital status, religion, age, race, disability, family status, sexual orientation or membership of the traveller community. 

I believe Tuesday's programme breeched these Acts on a number of grounds, including, but not restricted to: 
§ Pressing an individual to answer personal questions about her family background
§ Pressing and prying an individual after he said the matter was personal 
§ Discrimination in terms of a person’s disability (dyslexia and alcoholism) - the interviewer discriminated by assuming that dyslexia (or alcoholism) would be an issue (or a “very high risk”) rather than asking the candidate if they themselves believe it would impact on their job.
§ Asking questions about the candidate’s family and implying the candidate was selfish to go for a job in Dublin. 
§ Making reference to a candidates gender throughout an interview 

The Apprentice purports to be a series about hiring a business candidate. Brightwater have been intimately involved throughout the series. I would have thought that if the "entertainment" excuse was being used, reference would have been made to the inappropriateness of the questioning. 

I believe the programme (and Brightwater) should issue an apology and clarification in the next episode. I believe someone from the Equality Authority should be on the show and confirm the position / penalties to organisations which discriminate during an interview process. Lastly I believe that the three interview candidates themselves should receive legal advice as to whether they were being discriminated against.

In the past the programme has taken liberties by calling a candidate a “bully” on national television. I believe on Tuesday’s programme it overstepped the mark.


I have sent this to relevant parties including:
dublin@brightwater.ie
http://www.meteor.ie/contact_us/contact_form/
info@tv3.ie
http://www.goldenapples.ie/contact/index.htm
info@equality.ie
info@bci.ie


----------



## marshmallow (8 Dec 2009)

Oh for crying out loud ... it's a TV programme!


----------



## STEINER (8 Dec 2009)

marshmallow said:


> Oh for crying out loud ... it's a TV programme!


 
Its an entertainment TV show.  presumably all the candidates sign an agreement prior to taking part, so they know what they are getting into.

I only watched a bit of this programme once, its not my cup of tea.  From the bit I saw I deduced that in real life I wouldnt want to work for an employer like this.


----------



## jhegarty (8 Dec 2009)

STEINER said:


> Its an entertainment TV show.  presumably all the candidates sign an agreement prior to taking part, so they know what they are getting into.



You can't signed away your legal rights.

Someone was rejected from a job becuase of an interview process that as described above broke a list of employment legislation.


----------



## randombloke (8 Dec 2009)

Are you Geraldine?


----------



## marshmallow (8 Dec 2009)

randombloke said:


> Are you Geraldine?


 
Brilliant!


----------



## Complainer (8 Dec 2009)

It would have been very interesting to see what would happen if one of the candidates had the cojones to challenge the very poor interviewing practices shown on the show. There is indeed a risk that other interviewers will follow the example shown on the show. 

OP - if you haven't already done so, get your complaint into the BAI and cc the Equality Authority.


----------



## becky (8 Dec 2009)

God lads I hope ye don't ruin it for next year now.

I only saw bits of last night so can't comment on last nights show but I did think that referring to Steve as a bully a few weeks ago was disgraceful.  

Steve to win.


----------



## lightswitch (8 Dec 2009)

I think the Broadcasting commission of Ireland may look after this, not up to much from what I hear though, try www.bci.ie

To a point I agree with the OP. Bullying in the workplace seems to be rife at the moment. I do believe that programmes like these cause some people to think that they can just be fired on the whim of their employer, particularly during a recession.

On a further note having watched Tuesday night's show the 4 interviewers pandering to Bill was quite nauseating.


----------



## hunter09 (8 Dec 2009)

Think this is silly, its obvious to any eejit that the programme is no way intended to replicate a real-life situation. In real life job applications you are not put in a house, divided into teams and asked to design chocolate bars! Agree with marshmalow, why all the po-faced responses to what is a entertainment show?


----------



## Complainer (8 Dec 2009)

lightswitch said:


> I think the Broadcasting commission of Ireland may look after this, not up to much from what I hear though, try www.bci.ie


BCI is no more - it is now part of the BAI.


----------



## lazing (8 Dec 2009)

I appreciate everyone's feedback:
- I've really enjoyed the show other than this issue
- I wouldn't consider myself particularly PC or easily offended
- I fully appreciate it is a tv entertainment show
- As it happens I am not Geraldine (or Aoiffe!)

Jobs are hard to come by now.  These people are competing for a job (1-year contract as I understand it), and it's on national tv.  Perhaps the producers, etc. have some duty of care to the participants.  It's not quite UK's big brother with Shelpa Shetty, but it is a form of discrimination.  I would have been more than happy if they had made an even minor reference to this during / after the show.


----------



## jhegarty (8 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> BCI is no more - it is now part of the BAI.



And the BAI isn't up and running yet , so Ireland effectively has no television regulator at the moment.


----------



## UFC (8 Dec 2009)

I think it's a TV show so it shouldn't be taken seriously.


----------



## lightswitch (8 Dec 2009)

[broken link removed]

Here is the complaints section for the bai, cheers complainer and jhegarty.


----------



## WaterSprite (8 Dec 2009)

Watching it now.  It's really cringeworthy.  It's a bit disappointing because I thoroughly enjoyed the other episodes.  Really, it's the interviewers that are bulling IMO.  Delighted you complained, lazing.


----------



## DavyJones (8 Dec 2009)

Isn't it just a fancy game show? would be surprised if real life employment law applied.


----------



## ninsaga (8 Dec 2009)

Its TV - and nothing is real or as it seems in TV land. Its an entertainment show, edited accordingly ..... don't let it get to you. Treat it the same as X-factor - its all about getting ratings.


----------



## liaconn (8 Dec 2009)

I don't think that a lot of the backbiting, shouting down other people's ideas, overestimating your own abilities and selling your team mates up the river would be considered best practice either. It's a TV show and the people competing are well aware that they're playing a game, not taking part in a real life interview situation. I agree that those interviews last night would be completely illegal in a normal work situation, but this is more of a game show scenario and I suppose anything goes.


----------



## Guest128 (9 Dec 2009)

Hated BC saying to Steve that if he gave him the job, he'd have him 24/7 - talk about the worst way to motivate someone to work harder, FFS its only €100K salary Bill, not €1 million.


----------



## Deas (9 Dec 2009)

lazing said:


> I appreciate everyone's feedback:
> - I've really enjoyed the show other than this issue
> - I wouldn't consider myself particularly PC or easily offended
> - I fully appreciate it is a tv entertainment show
> ...


 

Given your concern, why have you not written in about the bullying on the rest of the show that you seem to be enjoying? Really though, you are taking this too serious. It is a TV show. The professionals were used to get behind the candidates/trick them/catch them out for our entertainment, not to really interview them at all. Do you genuinely think that the show will have any bearing on reality?

That said, I do feel sorry for the guys that have taken part as I genuinely think they have made themselves unemployable for the most part (through their own actions mind).

I think if your not Geraldine, you must be a friend of hers.


----------



## jack2009 (9 Dec 2009)

lazing said:


> I appreciate everyone's feedback:
> - I've really enjoyed the show other than this issue
> - I wouldn't consider myself particularly PC or easily offended
> - I fully appreciate it is a tv entertainment show
> ...


----------



## Deas (9 Dec 2009)

By the by - wht don't we write the the Employment Appeals Tribunal also.  A number of them seem to have been dismissed without recourse to due process and rights of natural justice!!


----------



## jhegarty (9 Dec 2009)

Deas said:


> By the by - wht don't we write the the Employment Appeals Tribunal also.  A number of them seem to have been dismissed without recourse to due process and rights of natural justice!!



You don't get them until you have been hired. This is effectively an interview process.


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

jhegarty said:


> And the BAI isn't up and running yet , so Ireland effectively has no television regulator at the moment.


BAI are currently investigating a seperate complaint from me.


----------



## Firefly (9 Dec 2009)

I think it's fair game as it's a tv show and the contestants know what to expect from previous years. 

Not sure I'd be running in to Brightwater though!!


----------



## Betsy Og (9 Dec 2009)

While I enjoy the show, I do agree that the boardroom grillings, interview styles etc are a very poor example to giving people, both employers, employees, and potential employees. 

Its the "power trip" thing that annoys me most, and how all contestants are expected to unquestionably jump through hoops for Bill's entertainment. A real question should be - would you tell Bill Cullen if you thought he was about to make a mistake? - if they're not willing to, or Bill couldn't accept or at least consider an alternative view, then its all one great crew of Yes men, which is typically a recipe for disaster.

Are we going to end up with a generation of people who'll have to be dragged from an interview room screaming "I'll pay me own wages", "I'll close the deals for you". Seems to be wall to wall deal closing down Bill's way (and I dont think Bill would be letting them close the deal on their own on anything much more than the toilet roll order).

It's a similar, but less extreme, version of yer man in the kitchen. He should be banned on public service grounds, if we end up with managers like him we can all go home cos it aint going to work in the long run.


----------



## jhegarty (9 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> BAI are currently investigating a seperate complaint from me.



The BAI board has not been assembled yet. No complaints go beyond the comment stage until they do.


----------



## Staples (9 Dec 2009)

I've watched the series almost from the beginning and have observed several instances where the programme has treaded some very thin ice in relation to equality and other legislation. 

I know it's presented as entertainment but I feel this week's format, in particular, was a bridge too far. Even with the X-Factor, comments are generally confined to a person's singing ability but this episode of the Apprenctice tried to delve unreasonaly deeply into the person's self. For example where was the evidence for concluding that Stephen had self-esteem issues? (Granted, he may have, but it would take more than the opinion of a HR person to establish this as the fact it was presented.). If someone publicly expressed something like that about me with what appeared to be very little evidence, I think I'd be taking it further. 

Also, the bit where the guy living in Cork was asked about the fairness of moving his family from Cork was outrageous. The appropriate question there would have been "To what extent have you considered the personal implications of moving to Dublin?".

For HR professionals, supposedly at the top end of their profession, I felt they were leaving themseleves unreasonably exposed.


----------



## onq (9 Dec 2009)

lazing said:


> <snip>
> § Discrimination in terms of a person’s disability (dyslexia and alcoholism) - the interviewer discriminated by assuming that dyslexia (or alcoholism) would be an issue (or a “very high risk”) rather than asking the candidate if they themselves believe it would impact on their job.
> <snip>



Dyslexia is a disability - oddly enough it can also be a sign of high I.Q.
I understand alcoholism to be a form of addiction, one that leads to substance abuse, the substance being alcohol.
Some people prefer to define it as a disease, which I'm sure is a better way of dealing with it long term for family and friends.
As far as dealing with it in the workplace I offer this: [broken link removed] but them calling it a disability is not correct IMO

Chronic alcoholics are a risk to life, limb, reputation and profitability of any company they are employed by - especially on building sites or if they drive.
I've seen two people die from alcoholism - they had all the warnings from doctors and family support they could wish for, everything that was humanly possible.
An addictive personality will go to any lengths to feed their habit, involve others in it and protect themselves from scrutiny if its causing problems in their employment.
Chronic alcoholics are potentially unemployable for anything except a well supervised desk job that doesn't involve driving, distractions, social events, or high-risk environments.
Additive disorders tend to get worse over time, unless the addict chooses to face their addiciton and decide to do something about it - this is a matter for them - no one can do it for them.

I've met and worked with enough people who suffer from addiction to drink or are married to people who are addicted to know addiction wrecks marriages and careers.
I didn't see the episode in question [Bill is too much], but if alcoholism was involved, the employer has every right to grill the potential employee in my book.
Because the first step on the road to dealing with alcoholism is to admit you have a problem - any fluffing or denial will come out in the questioning.
If the addict is still in denial about the disease, then they are potentially an unreliable, unaccountable, untrustworthy, unsafe employee.
The pity is that addiction often strikes down the best of us, the intelligent ones with strong personalities and bright futures.
BTW, addiction is closely related to compulsion and both these afflications need to be identified at the interview stage.

I once knew a guy who was a compulsive gambler and another who was a compulsive consumer of goods.
Both ended up in debt for tens of thousands of Euro and had to enter into recovery programmes too.
Dealing with addiction/compulsion is time-consuming and an employers first duty is to his company.
I see nothing wrong in "outing" an alcoholic who is in denial and/or covering up their addiciton.

For the record, I'm not an alcoholic or recovering alcoholic, thank God.

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

onq said:


> I understand alcoholism to be a form of addiction, one that leads to substance abuse, the substance being alcohol.
> Some people prefer to define it as a disease, which I'm sure is a better way of dealing with it long term for family and friends.
> As far as dealing with it in the workplace I offer this: [broken link removed] but them calling it a disability is not correct IMO



Here's the definition of disability from the Employment Equality Act 1998 - Alcohol seems to fit in (e) below.


> ‘‘disability’’ means—
> (a) the total or partial absence of a person’s bodily or mental
> functions, including the absence of a part of a person’s
> body,
> ...





onq said:


> I didn't see the episode in question [Bill is too much], but if alcoholism was involved, the employer has every right to grill the potential employee in my book.


No disrespect, but your book doesn't really matter in this context. It is what is in the law book that matters.


----------



## shanegl (9 Dec 2009)

I don't see alcoholism in the law book, just your interpretation of it. So are you legally trained to interpret Irish employment statutes?


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

shanegl said:


> I don't see alcoholism in the law book, just your interpretation of it. So are you legally trained to interpret Irish employment statutes?


You don't see any specific conditions or diseases mentioned in the law book. Are you saying that you don't believe that alcohol is "a* condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour*"?


----------



## shanegl (9 Dec 2009)

What I believe is irrelevant, as you say, that's my book, not the law book.


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

shanegl said:


> What I believe is irrelevant, as you say, that's my book, not the law book.


I see - so you are arguing for the sake of argueing. Perhaps you might want to check with the guys who decide the law in these cases then.

From 


> discrimination on the grounds of disability not found although the Equality Officer d*id find inter alia that alcoholism came within the definition of disability in the Act*



Note: this particular case refers to the Equal Status Act, not the Employment Equality Act, though the definition referred to in (e) above is identical in both Acts.


----------



## shanegl (9 Dec 2009)

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I asked you a specific question which you neatly avoided. You were the one making claims regarding interpretation of law, perhaps you should be the one to check with the ones who decide law before you make such claims. Especially since it seems clear you are not legally trained.  

Must say its a badge of honour to have Complainer acuse me if arguing for the sake of arguing!


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

shanegl said:


> I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I asked you a specific question which you neatly avoided. You were the one making claims regarding interpretation of law, perhaps you should be the one to check with the ones who decide law before you make such claims. Especially since it seems clear you are not legally trained.


Right - so only those who are 'legally trained' can comment on legal issues. Architects/QS/Engineers should not comment on building regulations, HR people should not comment on employment law, IT people should not comment on Data Protection law etc etc.


----------



## Latrade (9 Dec 2009)

shanegl said:


> I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I asked you a specific question which you neatly avoided. You were the one making claims regarding interpretation of law, perhaps you should be the one to check with the ones who decide law before you make such claims. Especially since it seems clear you are not legally trained.
> 
> Must say its a badge of honour to have Complainer acuse me if arguing for the sake of arguing!


 
Well in this case the law book is actually quite clear, as a person who is a recovering alcoholic is seen as someone covered by the definition of having a disability. It remains to be tested as to whether this extends to one who is still an alcoholic, but the general view is that this would also be covered by the legislation.

In this context, if it were the real world, then that line of questioning would have been inappropriate.


----------



## Kine (9 Dec 2009)

UFC said:


> I think it's a TV show so it shouldn't be taken seriously.


 
Tell that to the guys getting criminal charges in "I'm a Celeb..."

But officer, it was only a TV show...


----------



## ccbkd (9 Dec 2009)

I watch on Monday to compensate for lack of comedy on other channels. I have many a good chuckle and belly laugh as the candidates become pathetic obsequious beings pandering and stoking to Bills ego as they cut each others throats and extoll their qualities in vain attempt to become a glorified sales agent.


----------



## onq (9 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> Here's the definition of disability from the Employment Equality Act 1998 - Alcohol seems to fit in (e) below.


I'm happy to stand corrected on the matter of law


> No disrespect, but your book doesn't really matter in this context. It is what is in the law book that matters.


No offence taken, and I take your point, but for me its a Politically Correct step too far.
To develop this is a little further, I'm not specifically commenting on alcoholics, but include any person with addictive/compulsive disorders that impair their judgement, etc.
I don't believe its right to classify
(i) people who have a choice in determining their behaviour, like alcoholics, and choose not to deal with their addiction, with 
(ii) people with disabilities, for example those who have lost a limb in an accident or who are deaf or blind because of a genetic defect.
In my experience, disabled people perform well up to the limit of their disability - their spirit and courage in the face of adversity enhance all our lives.
Addicts - as opposed to recovering addicts - are unscrupulous, devious individuals who will do anything to satisfy their craving and tend to drag others down with them.

For that reason, the distinction being based on personal choice, I think the law needs to be changed or amended in this regard to exclude "practising alcoholics" from the definition of "disabled".
Re recovering alcoholics I am open to persuasion, but in employment terms they should disclose their disease to their employers to ensure appropriate checking and support mechanisms are made available.

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## Ash 22 (9 Dec 2009)

What I did'nt think was right was when one of the interviewers was asking Stephen about the leisure business he runs and referred to Stephens weight or overweight, can't remember the exact wording. If it were a woman in Stephens place that issue would not and quite rightly in my opinion be referred to.


----------



## WaterSprite (9 Dec 2009)

Ash 22 said:


> What I did'nt think was right was when one of the interviewers was asking Stephen about the leisure business he runs and referred to Stephens weight or overweight, can't remember the exact wording. If it were a woman in Stephens place that issue would not and quite rightly in my opinion be referred to.



I think they would have also said it to a woman, no bother to them. They crossed all the lines of even common decency and were extremely rude, negative and bullying.


----------



## liaconn (9 Dec 2009)

I definitely think they came across as totally unprofessional, and weren't a patch on the interviewers in the British series who know how to be good telly without departing completely from the normal rules of business like interviewing.


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2009)

onq said:


> No offence taken, and I take your point, but for me its a Politically Correct step too far.
> To develop this is a little further, I'm not specifically commenting on alcoholics, but include any person with addictive/compulsive disorders that impair their judgement, etc.
> I don't believe its right to classify
> (i) people who have a choice in determining their behaviour, like alcoholics, and choose not to deal with their addiction, with
> ...


I see where you are coming from, but putting it down to a matter of choice is over simplistic. No-one chooses to be an alcoholic, or a herion addict, or morbidly obese, or asthmatic. They may well have chosen to lift their first glass, or smoke their first joint, but an addictive personality is not just a matter of choice. This is getting into very dangerous territory. If a physical disability arose from a car accident which was the fault of the individual concerned, would they lose their rights too? Or if their lung cancer is caused by smoking, would they lose their rights too?

I would also quibble with your somewhat heroic description of people with disabilities. In my experience, they are largely the same as everyone else - some of them are heroes, some of them are chancers, some of them are criminals, some of them are just ordinary folk getting on with their day to to day lives.

Disclosure of disabilities in an employment situation is a huge can of worms. In theory, it is a great idea, but how many of us would really want to disclose a mental health condition, or a past addiction to an employer. How long do you have to be sober before it is reasonable not to disclose? What will the impact be on your future career once your disability is on the record? These are very difficult issues, without simple answers.


----------



## Caveat (10 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> I see where you are coming from, but putting it down to a matter of choice is over simplistic. No-one chooses to be an alcoholic, or a herion addict, or morbidly obese, or asthmatic. They may well have chosen to lift their first glass, or smoke their first joint, but an addictive personality is not just a matter of choice. This is getting into very dangerous territory. If a physical disability arose from a car accident which was the fault of the individual concerned, would they lose their rights too? Or if their lung cancer is caused by smoking, would they lose their rights too?
> 
> I would also quibble with your somewhat heroic description of people with disabilities. In my experience, they are largely the same as everyone else - some of them are heroes, some of them are chancers, some of them are criminals, some of them are just ordinary folk getting on with their day to to day lives.
> 
> Disclosure of disabilities in an employment situation is a huge can of worms. In theory, it is a great idea, but how many of us would really want to disclose a mental health condition, or a past addiction to an employer. How long do you have to be sober before it is reasonable not to disclose? What will the impact be on your future career once your disability is on the record? These are very difficult issues, without simple answers.


 
Well put Complainer, I agree.


----------



## Betsy Og (10 Dec 2009)

I think you'd be foolish to be too honest vis a vis health issues on a CV/in an interview. The clever employer wont mention it but wont interview you or hire you. 

You'll then have to prove you were the outstanding candidate and the reason you werent hired was because of that health/gender/orientation etc etc reason. How often will you be the stand out candidate in the current market, how would you know you were. The employer just needs to find one point in the person they hired and say that that swayed them (whether it should have or not), and that the disability etc etc didnt even enter their minds.

Contrast that with your history being uncovered on the job, if they want to sack you then they need to show poor performance, verbal & written warnings etc etc. If you've been there >11 months (or maybe a year) then you're protected re constructive dismissal etc etc. Employer knows they're vulnerable to claim that dismissed because found out about disability etc. - so they would be reluctant to go there or might volunteer a pay off you for to go.

I doubt you can be held legally accountable for saying nothing, or even lying, about a subject that the employer had no entitlement to question on in the first place.


----------



## lightswitch (10 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> I see where you are coming from, but putting it down to a matter of choice is over simplistic. No-one chooses to be an alcoholic, or a herion addict, or morbidly obese, or asthmatic. They may well have chosen to lift their first glass, or smoke their first joint, but an addictive personality is not just a matter of choice. This is getting into very dangerous territory. If a physical disability arose from a car accident which was the fault of the individual concerned, would they lose their rights too? Or if their lung cancer is caused by smoking, would they lose their rights too?
> 
> I would also quibble with your somewhat heroic description of people with disabilities. In my experience, they are largely the same as everyone else - some of them are heroes, some of them are chancers, some of them are criminals, some of them are just ordinary folk getting on with their day to to day lives.
> 
> Disclosure of disabilities in an employment situation is a huge can of worms. In theory, it is a great idea, but how many of us would really want to disclose a mental health condition, or a past addiction to an employer. How long do you have to be sober before it is reasonable not to disclose? What will the impact be on your future career once your disability is on the record? These are very difficult issues, without simple answers.


 
I totally agree with you too Complainer.


----------



## bond-007 (11 Dec 2009)

Kine said:


> Tell that to the guys getting criminal charges in "I'm a Celeb..."


Oh do explain? I must have missed that.


----------



## Complainer (13 Dec 2009)

bond-007 said:


> Oh do explain? I must have missed that.


[broken link removed]

I saw this episode today (well, most of it), and it was even worse than this thread led me to believe. The only good news was how the dyslexia was handled. The way it was brought up was unprofessional, but the issue was covered in the context of how he would get over the problem in a work situation. This isn't an unreasonable approach.

The bad news was that it could be used in a training video of how NOT do to business interviews. There were many demonstrations of unprofessional approaches, i.e. bringing up family stuff, past personal history, candidate's shoes etc. The biggest problem for me was the failure of the interviewers to probe on the less dramatic stuff. When each of the candidates claimed they were the biggest/greatest/best salesperson/buyer/teamplayer etc, any half-decent interviewer would have asked them for examples to back this up. Poor showing....

PS What cars are they being ferried about in? Was that an Espace, or the Grand Espace, or what? http://www.renault.ie/specialoffers-scrappage-1.asp


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Dec 2009)

This is being debated on LinkedIn. I don't know if anyone can provide a link? 

But here is Bloch's reply to criticism from Eoin Brawn. 

*David  Bloch *

Managing Director at  Brightwater
See  all David’s activity » 
[broken link removed] Follow David 
*Eoin, I  fully appreciate your concerns and even the tone in which you addressed them. I  hope my reply will help to assuage your concerns. 

First-off, I would  never accept any form of inequality. As for dyslexia, there are 3 people in my  family who are dyslexic, including my youngest son, Alexander. I think you can  take from this that I understand dyslexia very well indeed and the advantages  and disadvantages of being dyslexic. Steve put on his application form that he  was dyslexic, as well as a recovering alcoholic and gambler. He was happy to  discuss them all and I admired his honesty and bravery - in fact I recommended  him as my choice for the role... I will find out next Monday whether Bill  listened! 

Almost everyone seemed to enjoy the show, understanding that  the premise from the start (that you can lean over a desk, point a finger and  tell someone "You're Fired"!) is unrealistic. Every candidate was fully aware of  what they were doing and why, and the interviewers were briefed to push hard as  it makes great TV. Neither Sheena, nor Gavin are employees of Brightwater - and  we have no editorial control over the show at all NB. For what it's worth, I too  thought some of the pushing was a little unfair, but then I don't like to watch  how people are treated on many Shows, like Questions & Answers and Jonathan  Ross. 

Brightwater are an extremely professional and ethical company and  no, interviews are not conducted like on TV - in fact, every candidate on the  Show was interviewed for 1 hour each by each interviewer (3 candidates x 4  interviewers = 12 hours) and you just saw the 20 minutes that TV3 selected. I  can also confirm that none of the candidates were offended, indeed I've had the  pleasure of meeting most of them after the show and we've placed some of them in  new jobs - including Geraldine (who had drinks and watched the show with us on  Monday evening). 

I'm sorry for any distress this has caused you and hope  I have allayed your fears, but if you have any other questions, queries, or  concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me directly – perhaps you might  kindly do that first-off, before posting something on linkedIn. 

Yours  sincerely, 

David Bloch 
Managing Director  *


----------



## Complainer (14 Dec 2009)

Brendan said:


> This is being debated on LinkedIn. I don't know if anyone can provide a link?
> 
> But here is Bloch's reply to criticism from Eoin Brawn.
> 
> ...



Looks like this discussion is in a private 'Irish Recruiters' group on LinkedIn, so it will only be visible to members of that group. David makes a fair point about the impact of the editing process. We really have little idea how the whole interview went. The editing seemed disjointed and jumpy at key points (e.g. Gavin pushing Geraldine about her relationship with Breffni), almost reminding me of Homer Simpson's interview in the Venus de Milo Gummi Bear episode.


----------

