Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by littlestymaar | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

littlestymaar

Related: in my town in France, I once saw a job offer at a temporary employment agency with the following requirements:

- undergraduate degree

- ability to carry heavy weights

Which struck me as antithetical, but it looks like it's now the norm.

View on HN

First step: Primary education is made easier, everybody passes, so the minimum standard is secondary education

Second step: Secondary education is made easier, everybody passes, so the minimum standard is university.

That's why everybody needs a master's/doctorate now.

Why do you think a job can't legitimately require both?

For example an infantry officer needs to be able to carry heavy weights and typically an undergraduate degree.

I think the idea is that if you don't want to carry heavy weights as your day job, you get a college degree. If you don't mind, it's easy enough to find work doing that without getting a degree.

> I think the idea is that if you don't want to carry heavy weights as your day job, you get a college degree.

Right - and I disagree and think that doesn't match up to reality - plenty of jobs legitimately and have always required both.

I think companies just want to make sure you are not so out of shape that you will have health issues. They can use that as an excuse to get rid of a person with health issues so they don't have to deal with a person having medical leave.

My company, for example, requires us to be able lift 30 pounds. They don't have any sort of test or anything like that, but I doubt anybody (except maybe people who deal with printers) lifts more than that.

Emergency medical responder is an example of a role that requires both specialized training and the ability to carry heavy weights.

But you don't need a bachelors to be an EMT. You just get specialized training for the specific job

physical fitness should be the standard regardless of education, if only for the health benefits

By french laws, “carrying heavy weight” («port de charges lourdes») means “up to 55kg” (for male workers). Doing so on a regular basis is way above “physical fitness” and constitute a serious health hazard in the long run.

Health, in my opinion, should not be a criterion for employment. As in completely illegal, not just discouraged.

that's rather specious. For example, if an individual can't fireman carry an average male, they certainly should not be a fireman.

While I agree with your point, firemen are a particularly bad example here since in France most of them are volunteers and there is no such restrictions on physical abilities.

65% of US firefighters are volunteer too -- requirements vary by state, but many do have physical and training requirements.

Sure, and in France too, but I'd bet “carrying an average male” (almost 200lbs in the US, and 77kg in France) isn't part of that requirement, otherwise you'd barely see any woman firefighter.

You do rarely see female firefighters.

> In 2017, 77,900, or 7%, of the firefighters were female. Of the career firefighters 13,400 (4%) were female firefighters. There were 64,500 volunteer firefighters who were female, 9% of the total number of volunteer firefighters.

https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-too...

Oh, that's interesting. That means there is a cultural difference between France and the US when it comes to firefighters. There are 16% female firefighters here in France, and among the young generation the radio is more like 1/3.

So would rather the potential for the potentially deadly physical inability of an individual to trump the feels of an individual?

Most jobs require doing stuff, which generally requires being healthy.

sounds to me like geology?

the new hire is responsible for carrying all the rocks around

Reply on news.ycombinator.com