TV3's The Apprentice, Bill Cullen & Brightwater

Complainer said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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
(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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Well put Complainer, I agree.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you too Complainer.

Kine said:

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

Click to expand...

Oh do explain? I must have missed that.

bond-007 said:

Oh do explain? I must have missed that.

Click to expand...

[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

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

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.

David Bloch

Managing Director at Brightwater
See all David’s activity »
[broken link removed] Follow David

Click to expand...

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.