Name of weekly column: Speechly Speak

This week's contributor: Eliza Nash solicitor, Speechly Bircham



Dragon Den's Theo Paphitis’ recently made his attitude to pregnant women combining their careers with families and their ability to cope with the two very clear. Commenting on women running his companies he said that: “They go and get themselves bloody pregnant and I say ‘right: for three months before you even give birth, you’re going to be useless, you’re brain will turn to mush. They always argue they’ll be working until the day before, have the baby…and be back at work the following day, and then after the birth the maternal instinct kicks in, they take three months off, get it out of their system and are back to normal.”

Sex discrimination and sexual harassment

This may have caused some anger particularly among those in his former empire, La Senza, in which women form a large part of the workforce as well as the customer base. The expression of such opinions in the workplace would give rise to claims of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, not only by pregnant employees at the receiving end, but, since the law was recently amended, by others offended by such comments.

It's also evidence of a discriminatory attitude that would be likely to taint other decisions. For example, if a pregnant woman was passed over for promotion, such comments would create an inference that there was a discriminatory reason for that decision. Equally telling is the fact that women working for Mr Paphitis feel the need to say they will be back at work so soon after birth.

The law allows women to take one year maternity leave and then return to their previous role. If their brains do turn ‘blancmange like’ after the birth (which ignores research evidence that women’s brains actually function better after having children), this should not matter as they are perfectly entitled to spend this time at home.

The idea that they should have to deny the legitimacy and importance of their role of mother runs counter to the whole aim behind changes to the law in this area, which is to allow both men and women to balance work with a family life, not for women to have to pretend that they do not have outside commitments in order to achieve success at work.

Sir Alan Sugar

Mr Paphitis is not alone in purporting to make a virtue out of firing off such unashamedly sexist views. Sir Alan Sugar has argued that equality laws make it more difficult for women to find jobs and has criticised laws that prevent employers asking job applicants if they plan to get married or have children.

Last year, a candidate on The Apprentice, Katie Hopkins, a mother of two, walked out of the show when Sir Alan questioned her commitment and asked if she could cope with a job at Amstrad with two young children at home. Sir Alan was reported as saying that questioning her was a legitimate way of seeking a solution to a workplace problem and that it was right for women to be asked about childcare arrangements. 

Perhaps, but would he have asked the same of a male candidate? Unlikely. The difficulty is that other comments made by him suggest that providing this information is not likely to do anything to assist a woman in her career. The remark that: "You pay a person a salary, they cut their cloth accordingly" does not suggest much accommodation of family commitments. 

The comment that: "I do what I like in the board room…they can p**s off” suggests a degree of immunity from UK employment laws. While this may be the case on the television show, it is not true for decisions made at Sir Alan's company, Amstrad. The director’s table is not a safe haven from UK employment law and decisions made there are litigated in tribunals every day. 

Moving with the times

Mr Paphitis is the latest in a line of highly successful business men to express opinions which give the impression that the last 30 years of the development in seeking to improve the way in which women are treated in the workplace has not happened.

The Sex Discrimination Act came into force in 1975 since which time women have struggled to achieve an equal footing in the workplace. With women making up a large part of the workforce, employers cannot afford to ignore the additional responsibilities they have outside of work. Also, much of what has been enacted recently, allowing men the right to take time off following the birth of their child (which Mr Paphitis described as 'a bit soppy') and more recently to share part of a women’s paid maternity leave, is aimed at recognising the rights of all employees, both men and women, to a decent family life as well as a career. 

What is perhaps most worrying about these comments is the effect they have on young aspiring entrepreneurs (teenage boys apparently see Mr  Paphitis as something of a legend). If they pursue such policies in the work place they will land their companies at the wrong end of costly discrimination claims. They are also likely to alienate their client base, with more organisations placing an emphasis on corporate responsibility and fair practices. 

Such regressive attitudes undermine the rights of women and fail to recognise that women make up a significant and valuable part of the workforce whose rights cannot be ignored if employers are to make use of the best talent available. The statements are also out of step with much of today's corporate thinking which is increasingly focussed on encouraging diversity in the workplace as an important part of corporate responsibility programmes.

JOIN US IN THE FORUM

Do you have a suggestion, want to connect with this contributor or take part in this debate? 
Join Eliza in the forum.
Or, if you prefer, use the comment box below...