This interview mostly involved listening to a run-down of the role and its components. The interviewer started off by saying that he recently had to "fire 45 people because they were only in the job for a paycheck." He emphasized that the job did not involve sales, as they already had a salesperson. It would instead involve cold-calling and meeting an appointment-setting quota - however, these are not appointments in an administrative sense, but more like appointments made in hopes that the recipient will buy something. So, in other words, still sales, no matter how it's packaged. As the interviewer continued, he made comments about how, in his words, "the current economy enables laziness" and that millennials don't want to work. For example, if your wife has a child and you take time off alongside her, you are behaving "stupidly" because you are not the one who had the baby. According to him, it's lazy of a person to even call out sick. (Nevermind that there's still a pandemic going on.) So let me get this straight: Wouldn't it be unproductive to fire 45 people (allegedly) if that puts you in a place where you'll continue to spend all this time looking for more people? (Also, is there a surefire way to know that 45 people didn't really care about their jobs?) Also, how can you look at the state of the underpaid and overworked working class in this economy and assume that they're lazy for wanting better conditions? I guess it's good to know ahead of time that you'll be working for a company who thinks that choosing not to put up with abusive corporate policies is "laziness," and that fathers shouldn't even spend time with their newborns. When you put profits over empathy, is it really a surprise that you'll end up with people who only "work for a paycheck"?