We only employ workers born under specific star signs, says insurance company

We only employ workers born under specific star signs, says insurance company

www.dailymail.co .uk

A row has broken out in Austria after a company tried to recruit workers born under certain star signs.

The Salzburg insurance company posted an advert in major newspapers seeking employees for sales and management that were born under certain constellations, claiming statistics indicated that they were the best workers.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The story goes on to say

The company is, however, sticking to its guns and a spokesman explained that the move was based on statistical research rather than superstition.

'A statistical study indicated that almost all of our best employees across Austria have one of the five star signs.

'We only decided to continue with that system and hire the best workers,' the spokesman said.

You know, Insurance companies base everything on Statistics... red cars.... single drivers, etc. Why not employees too?

How is this discrimination?

www.dailymail.co .uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't think it is because it's in Austria, not sure how their laws work, but this is laughable!

I wonder how long they'll stay in business with that hiring trend.

Originally posted by Riviera
I don't think it is because it's in Austria, not sure how their laws work, but this is laughable!

I wonder how long they'll stay in business with that hiring trend.

What do you mean? They aren't looking at astrology....

They are looking at actual statistics.... why not follow the same rules they use when determining insurance premiums as hiring workers?

How about only employing white people since they are statistically the best workers too, or maybe men only because they have higher IQs statistically than women?

Originally posted by logician magician
How about only employing white people since they are statistically the best workers too, or maybe men only because they have higher IQs statistically than women?

Are they? Can you show data supporting this statement?


I work with lots of people with high IQ's who can't do basic things....


This insurance company based their findings on workers in their company and their level of productivity.

Problematic issue. Since it is not based on superstition (hmmm,right...)
then how it is different then profiling people based on DNA? I am sure that there are genes that influence traits that contribute to productivity, so why not check them too while hiring staff..
If go along this line we will reach eugenics. Stars or genes - it is irrelevant. Both things are not controlled by individual.
I think that there should be a moral boundary that we must not reach.
Test the person's actual ability,not statistical one.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Agreed.. same thing... However, it is currently acceptable and legal practice by all Insurance companies everywhere.

haha oh you statistical fool! This is a nonsence corrolation thus no use as a predictor.

If bobby makes a noise like a dog while balls are picked from a bag and they count up and find that if he growls it's more likely a red ball than a green ball, then the five remaining balls (4green and one red left) are picked and bobby ONLY growls - so, the balls will all be red? haha of course not!

If you broke their workforce up using the gregorian months system, the chinese year system, the natureboy happy days system or any other random way of splitting up the birth dates then yes you would get some groups who are statistically better workers -does that mean someone born in that section of the year is a better worker? of course not!

If anything this means that they don't understand statistical mathmatics - so you might get a stupidly cheep quote, or a stupidly high quote from them but i really wouldn't invest in them

reply to post by NatureBoy


Uhm... It's the INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!

I'm pretty sure they understand statistics.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


This is a pretty weird case, I was about to start arguing about how astrology can never be a good indicator, as you cannot scientifically prove it, only say there is a statistical link, but then I realised that's actually the same for many indicators the insurers will use, like sex/age/postcode/car color. You can show a statistical link, but in most cases not show scientific cause.

I guess in those cases we should rely on common sense, and it appears this companies statisticians are lacking in that.

EDIT to add:

I Just had a weird idea of how it CAN be useful. If we consider that many people believe in astrology, then for many of them, it may be self fulfilling. Because they believe they are a certain personality type, then they will start to act like it.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by RubberBaron]

This is rubbish--I'ts a well known fact that if you want the best ,only one starsign fits that criteria----SCORPIO!

The sun sign is just a small part of a person's astrological chart. The rising sign, the moon sign, the houses that the planets are in, the relationship of the planets to each other, etc. are equally significant. Two Leos can be very different depending on the rest of their charts.

If this insurance company is going to hire on the basis of astology, they should at least do it right.

Hey, i just realised something! If they choose staff according to astrology and they are sure that it works - why not charge clients accordingly?
An example:If statistically Libra crash cars more often then ,say, Aries - they should pay more!
Somehow i doubt that it would be implemented. And it kind of ruines the whole "pure statistical" approach.

What do these people know ! I am a Pisces and I am the bestest for every job.

A thread was already started regarding this


www.abovetopsecret.com...



res

reply to post by HunkaHunka


why? hehe i suppose you thought the bankers knew what they were doing too right? doctors never get tricked into prescribing nonsense medications? judges never lock up innocent men?

How about all those people who win big with their 'system' in vegas only to loose it all later, statistics are funny and plenty of people who use them everyday and seem to be doing ok are infact idiots with no idea what they're really doing -it's almost funny.

read again my explanation of the fallacy they're stuck in, it's probably the most common beside of course 'gamblers fallacy's' i.e. 'i'm on a winning streak...' and 'it hasn't been tails the last three times so this time it MUST be.'