> “Here’s a reality check for you with a completely different scenario but a conclusion that reaffirms my bias”
It’s really a terrible argument to compare hiring for a physically intensive job to hiring for technical and administrative roles. it borders on bad faith.
If they're bold enough to do it for a physically intensive job despite the clear absurdity, why wouldn't they do it for something else where it's easier to get away with? The people driving this phenomenon are the same in both cases. Good riddance.
It’s really a terrible argument to compare hiring for a physically intensive job to hiring for technical and administrative roles. it borders on bad faith.