TV3's The Apprentice, Bill Cullen & Brightwater

[Deas]

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.

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]

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 .....

I think competing is an important word here, despite what the show is called the job is a prize!

 

[Deas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

<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]

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,
(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to
cause, chronic disease or illness,
(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of
a person’s body,
(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning
differently from a person without the condition or
malfunction, or
(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s
thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or
judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour,
and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or
which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in
the future or which is imputed to a person;

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Complainer]

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 did 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.