NationStates Jolt Archive

Blind contractor builds bridge ('http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2007/June/theworld_June358.xml&section=theworld&col=')

BEIJING - A Chinese court has jailed two officials after they let a blind contractor build a bridge which collapsed during construction and injured 12 people, the official Xinhua news agency said on Monday.

Huang Wenge, township head of Bujia in the southeastern province of Jiangxi, and colleague Xia Jianzhong were sentenced to 18 months and one year in jail, respectively, for not stopping the project, Xinhua said.

‘Huang Wenge and Xia Jianzhong, who were in charge of road management and supervision, did not ask the contractors to provide certificates guaranteeing their proficiency,’ it said, citing the court ruling.

‘When they knew the bridge was being built by a blind contractor, they did not stop it,’ it said, adding the contractor had changed the blueprint without getting a professional to look at the design.

‘After the blind contractor changed the blueprint, he carried out the work only using a roughly drawn draft of the plan, which caused the bridge to collapse,’ the report said.

Xinhua did not explain how the contractor was able to run the project considering his inability to see.

Yeah, how did he see the corrections he made?

How did he oversee the work?

Are there cases where a disabled person just can't do the work, no matter what accomodations you make?

Because China is noted for it's equal opportunity policies...

Because China is noted for it's equal opportunity policies...

Two government officials let a blind man design and build a bridge...

Two government officials let a blind man design and build a bridge...

‘Huang Wenge and Xia Jianzhong, who were in charge of road management and supervision, did not ask the contractors to provide certificates guaranteeing their proficiency’

They were quite simply criminally negligent. Equal opportunities doesn't come into it.

Two government officials let a blind man design and build a bridge...

ok, they were stupid and negligent and didn't take the time to ensure the person was qualified.

What's your point?

ok, they were stupid and negligent and didn't take the time to ensure the person was qualified.

What's your point?

Are there cases where a disabled person just can't do the work, no matter what accomodations you make?

As far as I can see this is nothing to do with equal opportunity policies (a rather Western thing) being over enforced, it's just simple incompetence (a global phenomena). I think you're missing the point.

Two government officials let a blind man design and build a bridge...

One case. Find us some more and maybe you'll have a point.

Frankly the whole thread title suggests that somehow, equal opportunity laws or policies somehow hoisted this blind man into a position he was ruefully unqualified for, and that it was these policies that tell us such mean and unforgiveable things like "we can't discriminate against people, even though you might like to" that caused this accident, and gee, its those damned liberal policies that cause accidents like this (even in fascist china) and this is what happens when those filthy liberals make laws!

Except, as typical with RO posts, what you say, and what the reality of the situation actually is bare no real similarities to each other.

Fail.

Are there cases where a disabled person just can't do the work, no matter what accomodations you make?

um, no shit? Who the hell ever said otherwise?

Frankly the whole thread title suggests that somehow, equal opportunity laws or policies somehow hoisted this blind man into a position he was ruefully unqualified for, and that it was these policies that tell us such mean and unforgiveable things like "we can't discriminate against people, even though you might like to" that caused this accident, and gee, its those damned liberal policies that cause accidents like this (even in fascist china) and this is what happens when those filthy liberals make laws!

Except, as typical with RO posts, what you say, and what the reality of the situation actually is bare no real similarities to each other.

Fail.

Obviously, there are jobs which the disabled are completely unqualified for, no matter what.

Win.

Obviously, there are jobs which the disabled are completely unqualified for, no matter what.

I'll repeat again, no shit. I don't know why you felt the need to point this out, are you going to make your next thread proclaiming the sky to be blue?

Win.

In much the same way as a slightly retarded child who finally learns to tie his shoes.

You figured something out painfully obvious, congratulations!

Obviously, there are jobs which the disabled are completely unqualified for, no matter what.

Win.

Not quite.

There are some jobs which certain disabilities prevent you from doing, and with advances in technology the number is steadily decreasing.

Frankly the whole thread title suggests that somehow, equal opportunity laws or policies somehow hoisted this blind man into a position he was ruefully unqualified for, and that it was these policies that tell us such mean and unforgiveable things like "we can't discriminate against people, even though you might like to" that caused this accident, and gee, its those damned liberal policies that cause accidents like this (even in fascist china) and this is what happens when those filthy liberals make laws!

Except, as typical with RO posts, what you say, and what the reality of the situation actually is bare no real similarities to each other.

Fail.

I'm forced to agree.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread20Failed.gif

Are there cases where a disabled person just can't do the work, no matter what accomodations you make?

of course there are ...

somebody who can only move his head won't be able to do most physically demanding jobs, what's your point?

Obviously, there are jobs which the disabled are completely unqualified for, no matter what.

Congratulations, you have stated the obvious.

Tautology, I believe.

couldn't he just use braille and such?

also I think a blind man feeling every part of the bridge and its workers would make the construction allot safer :p

I think RO got so tired of constantly and consistantly being so utterly dismantled in every post his makes that between this "I think certain disabilities disqualify you from certain jobs, what do you think?" and his "I would be mad if a terrorist group used a nuclear weapon, what about you?" threads, he has taken it upon himself to post such mind numblingly obvious things so that he will finally get someone to agree with him.

Next up "it is my belief that 2 + 2 = 4, what is your opinion?"

Obviously, there are jobs which the disabled are completely unqualified for, no matter what.

Win.

Except that's not what you wrote about.
In fact, apart from you, there is no mention whatsoever of Equal Opportunity in that article.

Your logic is like this:
The sky is blue.
This article says the oceans are blue.
So my conclusion is: why do you hate america?

Utter nonsense.

Fail.

Frankly the whole thread title suggests that somehow, equal opportunity laws or policies somehow hoisted this blind man into a position he was ruefully unqualified for, and that it was these policies that tell us such mean and unforgiveable things like "we can't discriminate against people, even though you might like to" that caused this accident, and gee, its those damned liberal policies that cause accidents like this (even in fascist china) and this is what happens when those filthy liberals make laws!

Except, as typical with RO posts, what you say, and what the reality of the situation actually is bare no real similarities to each other.

Fail.

:p (http://remoteobserver.justgotowned.com/)

In fact, apart from you, there is no mention whatsoever of Equal Opportunity in that article.

There doesn't have to be a mention of equal opportunity in the article.

It stands clearly as a representation of what happens when you don't care if a person's disability completely disqualifies them from doing a job.

Which is the premise behind equal opportunity - that no matter what your disability is, we should give you an opportunity to do the job.

Evelyn Glennie has been profoundly deaf since she was a child - does that prohibit her from becoming a musician? If so somebody had better tell her that, though she seems to be doing quite well.

Which is the premise behind equal opportunity - that no matter what your disability is, we should give you an opportunity to do the job.

except that it's not. And a strawman that's already been predicted.

Again, fail.

except that's not what the law in the US says, so either you are ignorant, or you think we are.

which is it?

ehh, little from column A, little from column B

except that's not what the law in the US says, so either you are ignorant, or you think we are.

which is it?

I'm not talking about the law - I'm talking about the philosophical premise behind equal opportunity for the disabled.

There doesn't have to be a mention of equal opportunity in the article.

It stands clearly as a representation of what happens when you don't care if a person's disability completely disqualifies them from doing a job.

Which is the premise behind equal opportunity - that no matter what your disability is, we should give you an opportunity to do the job.

except that's not what the law in the US says, so either you are ignorant, or you think we are.

which is it?

and as typical for an RO thread, his half asses argument is already done away with by the first page, and this time before he even got around to articulating it...

Where's that graphic again Ifreann?

and as typical for an RO thread, his half asses argument is already done away with by the first page, and this time before he even got around to articulating it...

Where's that graphic again Ifreann?

As typical, you distort and misrepresent my argument, and call it a win... ROFL

I'm not talking about the law - I'm talking about the philosophical premise behind equal opportunity for the disabled.

except that you're wrong. Again.

Most people have a LITTLE bit of shame. Anyway, since this is all done away with, I suggest we actually make something useful of this thread.

Who likes pie?

As typical, you distort and misrepresent my argument, and call it a win... ROFL

I didn't win anything. You lost all by yourself the moment you tried to make this aborted fetus of an argument try to work.

I didn't win anything. You lost all by yourself the moment you tried to make this aborted fetus of an argument try to work.

Sorry, I didn't lose.

It's stupid to have the blind build things.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/8/8a/Stfualgore.jpg/180px-Stfualgore.jpg

oh, then it is a strawman?

No, it's not a strawman. You fail.

Sorry, I didn't lose.

It's stupid to have the blind build things.

you lost the minute you felt it necessary to point this out and expected anything from anyone other than a resounding "duh"

I'm not talking about the law - I'm talking about the philosophical premise behind equal opportunity for the disabled.

oh, then it is a strawman?

No, it's not a strawman.

believe it or not, "nuh-uh" is not a valid argument


You fail.

neither is "I know you are but what am I?"

No, it's not a strawman. You fail.

http://rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk/Get%20Off%20My%20Internet.jpg

No, this is a clear representation of what happens when you don't pay any attention to who you're hiring.

Kind of hard to miss that he's blind.

There doesn't have to be a mention of equal opportunity in the article.

It stands clearly as a representation of what happens when you don't care if a person's disability completely disqualifies them from doing a job.
No, this is a clear representation of what happens when you don't pay any attention to who you're hiring.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

*wins*

Sorry, I haven't misrepresented an opponent's position. You fail.

No, it's not a strawman. You fail.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

*wins*

Sorry, I haven't misrepresented an opponent's position.

except to the extent that everything you've said has been wrong.

You fail.

you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

except that you're wrong. Again.

Most people have a LITTLE bit of shame. Anyway, since this is all done away with, I suggest we actually make something useful of this thread.

Who likes pie?

Pie is good. I'm kinda hungry actually.

Are there cases where a disabled person just can't do the work, no matter what accomodations you make?

Not quite.

There are some jobs which certain disabilities prevent you from doing, and with advances in technology the number is steadily decreasing.

Thanks RLI, you saved me the trouble of having to correct him; I'll just expand on your reponse. Are there jobs my disability precludes me from doing? Yes; construction worker and professional athlete come to mind. I'm also fairly certain I wouldn't want to have a blind pilot. I'll just say this: most of us know our physical limitations, and would never be so stupid as to embark on a career for which we were so ill-suited. But from what I could tell from this article, the problem with this guy doesn't stem from his blindness, but rather from incompetence and sheer supidity, which I imagine he would still suffer from even were he sighted. RO's implication that this was a case of equal opportunity employment policies run amok was, in light of the fact that this occurred in the PRC, and not the USA, beyond ridiculous and not worth the time it would take to compose a really good rant.

Sorry, I haven't misrepresented an opponent's position. You fail.

You have. You represented the article as an example of why equal opportunity employment for the disabled is wrong. The article is, in fact, no such thing.

You have. You represented the article as an example of why equal opportunity employment for the disabled is wrong. The article is, in fact, no such thing.

Sure it is.

It is a clear example of why the blind should not be allowed to design and build bridges.

Or do you believe they should be given the equal opportunity to do so?

Sure it is.

It is a clear example of why the blind should not be allowed to design and build bridges.

No, it's a clear example of why THIS blind man should not be allowed to design and build bridges. He does not represent all blind people any more than you represent all drooling butt monkies.

Or do you believe they should be given the equal opportunity to do so?

given that construction of these things is probably a highly regulated and licensed field, they should be given the equal opportunity to demonstrate proficiency and capability and if it is demonstrated that they are capable of building a bridge then sure, why not, provided they demonstrate capability.

of course neither you nor I know what is involved in modern day bridge building...although you've already pretended to be a soldier and a lawyer so it wouldn't shock me if you try to pretend to be an engineer.

And because this particular individual did not get his position through equal opportunity but rather than plain old negligence, and thus it has nothing to do with your topic, I have to once again award this thread with a big ol'

FAIL

Sure it is.

It is a clear example of why the blind should not be allowed to design and build bridges.

Or do you believe they should be given the equal opportunity to do so?

http://rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk/Colbert%20For%20Shame.gif

Sure it is.

It is a clear example of why the blind should not be allowed to design and build bridges.
Yes, and is about as useful as a clear example of the sky being blue, or an example of water being wet.

Or do you believe they should be given the equal opportunity to do so?

Where has anyone ever suggested that blind people should be allowed to build bridges? You're arguing against a position that nobody is advocating.

Jan Zizka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Zizka)

This guy successfully commanded armies while blind. In fact he never lost a battle.

Beethoven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven)

And this guy, while completely deaf, was able to compose beautiful, timeless music.

Disabled people can do things too.

Jan Zizka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Zizka)

This guy successfully commanded armies while blind. In fact he never lost a battle.

Beethoven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven)

And this guy, while completely deaf, was able to compose beautiful, timeless music.

Disabled people can do things too.



Quit trying to disrupt RO's black and white world view. Sensible arguments don't make the cut on his threads.

Are there cases where a disabled person just can't do the work, no matter what accomodations you make?

Yes. In other news, fire is hot, water is wet, and gas burns.

Two government officials let a blind man design and build a bridge...
This has the makings of great one-liner...

Quit trying to disrupt RO's black and white world view. Sensible arguments don't make the cut on his threads.

And exceptions very rarely prove the point.

And exceptions very rarely prove the point.

On the other hand, I find them quite useful to disprove blanket statements based on ignorance.

On the other hand, I find them quite useful to disprove blanket statements based on ignorance.
I find that generalizations are usually acceptable because they're mostly right. If we were to go around citing every exception to every generalization, it would take a long time to make a point.

Now, because a couple handicapped guys happened to do well is great, but it doesn't mean that we should allow blind guys to build bridges.

ok, ignoring any and all jabs at RO... and ignoring any jabs by RO at AA...

let's ask this question. Could a blind man be a contractor?

with Braille and raised printing methods... blueprints could be made in such a fashion to allow a blind person to read them.

As a contractor, he won't be building the bridge him/herself but will let the construction companies do the work for him/her.

the problem?

‘When they knew the bridge was being built by a blind contractor, they did not stop it,’ it said, adding the contractor had changed the blueprint without getting a professional to look at the design.

‘After the blind contractor changed the blueprint, he carried out the work only using a roughly drawn draft of the plan, which caused the bridge to collapse,’ the report said.

Professional what... Architect? Safety supervisor?

The contractor should've also been held accountable. because he made changes and probably did not go through the proper channels to authorize those changes. Seeing that there is no mention of any punishment being delt to the contractor... here's my question...

Had this contractor been visually sound and not handicapped in anyway would he have been punished instead of the two officials?

in other words...

Did the contractor's blindness save him/her from legal actions due to the unathourized changes that caused the bridge to collapse?

I find that generalizations are usually acceptable because they're mostly right. If we were to go around citing every exception to every generalization, it would take a long time to make a point.

Now, because a couple handicapped guys happened to do well is great, but it doesn't mean that we should allow blind guys to build bridges.

A couple? How very kind of you to allow us that much credit. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll just go off into a corner and drool.

Don't act like an idiot and post stupid things like this, OP.

Corrupt and negligent officials in the PRC have nothing to do with 'equal opportunity.'

Bald-faced lying.

ok, ignoring any and all jabs at RO... and ignoring any jabs by RO at AA...

let's ask this question. Could a blind man be a contractor?

with Braille and raised printing methods... blueprints could be made in such a fashion to allow a blind person to read them.

As a contractor, he won't be building the bridge him/herself but will let the construction companies do the work for him/her.

the problem?



Professional what... Architect? Safety supervisor?

The contractor should've also been held accountable. because he made changes and probably did not go through the proper channels to authorize those changes. Seeing that there is no mention of any punishment being delt to the contractor... here's my question...

Had this contractor been visually sound and not handicapped in anyway would he have been punished instead of the two officials?

in other words...

Did the contractor's blindness save him/her from legal actions due to the unathourized changes that caused the bridge to collapse?

This should have been the OP.

A skilled general contractor does not need to be sighted in order to do his or her job. Provided he or she had a qualified APM (assistant project manager) to do site visits, and the usual team of estimators and design professionals, there should be no problem. Things may be different in China, I don't know.

Since he changed the drawings without consulting a structural engineer, he should be held liable according to Quebec law (the one I am most familiar with) and I think I can safely assume that this is the case throughout North America. The article does not state whether or not the contractor himself was punished or what Chinese law is in this regard, so Junii's question is unanswered for now.

The two officilas who were punished were not punished for letting him build it though he was blind. They were punished for not asking the contractors to provide certificates guaranteeing their proficiency. So I would assume that the two officials would have been punished no matter what.

I think that the article's focus on the GC's blindness has more to do with selling newspapers than anything else, including the legality of allowing blind people to design bridges.

I find that generalizations are usually acceptable because they're mostly right. If we were to go around citing every exception to every generalization, it would take a long time to make a point.

Now, because a couple handicapped guys happened to do well is great, but it doesn't mean that we should allow blind guys to build bridges.

How can you not see that it does? If it is physically possible for them to be competent enough to do so, then where is the justification in saying all the blind cannot be architects?

All you do is hold them to the same standards of quality as everyone else. If they're competent enough to build a bridge there's no reason to stop them. If they're not, whether it's because they're blind, or because they're stupid, then don't.

There doesn't have to be a mention of equal opportunity in the article.

It stands clearly as a representation of what happens when you don't care if a person's disability completely disqualifies them from doing a job.

Which is the premise behind equal opportunity - that no matter what your disability is, we should give you an opportunity to do the job.


Come over here so i can beat you with my walking stick

what qualifies me to do my job is the fact that I have the qualifications to do that job. Obtained from a number of universities along side people who do not share my disabilities.

The fact that the contractor was not qualified and changed the plans are the reasons the bridge collapsed not, the fact that he is blind.

I'm sorry for you that you feel that crips should stay at home, or better still be put in a remote home where you don't have to look at us. We have fought as hard as any minority group against attitudes like yours. As an example we couldn't refuse to move to the back of the bus - we had to chain ourselves to it because we were not even allowed on.

Ultimately what "disqualifies" people like me from doing certain job is people like you who ignore the qualifications, experience and abilities I do have and concentrate on the bit of my body that works differently to yours.

‘Huang Wenge and Xia Jianzhong, who were in charge of road management and supervision, did not ask the contractors to provide certificates guaranteeing their proficiency’

They were quite simply criminally negligent. Equal opportunities doesn't come into it.

Exactly. The OP is trying to make this sound like another "PC gone mad" thread.

Which is the premise behind equal opportunity - that no matter what your disability is, we should give you an opportunity to do the job.

The premise also takes into account capability. You don't see legless people taking part in jogging marathons do you?

You fail at net life.

ok, ignoring any and all jabs at RO... and ignoring any jabs by RO at AA...

let's ask this question. Could a blind man be a contractor?

with Braille and raised printing methods... blueprints could be made in such a fashion to allow a blind person to read them.

As a contractor, he won't be building the bridge him/herself but will let the construction companies do the work for him/her.

the problem?



Professional what... Architect? Safety supervisor?

The contractor should've also been held accountable. because he made changes and probably did not go through the proper channels to authorize those changes. Seeing that there is no mention of any punishment being delt to the contractor... here's my question...

Had this contractor been visually sound and not handicapped in anyway would he have been punished instead of the two officials?

in other words...

Did the contractor's blindness save him/her from legal actions due to the unathourized changes that caused the bridge to collapse?The funny thing about this whole deal is that the problems could have been avoided if government inspectors had been doing their jobs while the bridge was being built. This seems to me to be similar to the recent stories about barrels of anti-freeze being mislabeled glycerin and winding up as an ingredient in toothpaste. Communist China is turning into the Gilded Age US, where the only concern is growing the economy and if a few people get hurt or dead along the way, no big deal--we've got plenty more. The whole disabled thing is just smoke.

The premise also takes into account capability. You don't see legless people taking part in jogging marathons do you?

You fail at net life.
Actually, there's a legless person who is attempting to get himself allowed to run in the regular Olympics rather than just the Special Olympics. If I remember correctly, the argument against him being allowed is the belief that his space-age technology running prosthetics would "give him an unfair advantage over runners using their own legs". If you like, I can search for the article and put up a link, but I don't have it at hand at the moment.

I find that generalizations are usually acceptable because they're mostly right. If we were to go around citing every exception to every generalization, it would take a long time to make a point.


So.....every White Male American is a KKK member who claims America will be punished for not destroying all gays, drives SUVs, owns guns, is a Christian and an ignorant buffoon?


Now, because a couple handicapped guys happened to do well is great, but it doesn't mean that we should allow blind guys to build bridges.

What part of qualifications don't you get? It's pretty clear to me this blind guy wasn't qualified to begin with, and the people who did the hiring were incompetent to criminal levels.

If a blind guy with proper qualifications and proof of ability applies for the job, if he's the best for it out of the others, I don't see why not.

Actually, there's a legless person who is attempting to get himself allowed to run in the regular Olympics rather than just the Special Olympics. If I remember correctly, the argument against him being allowed is the belief that his space-age technology running prosthetics would "give him an unfair advantage over runners using their own legs". If you like, I can search for the article and put up a link, but I don't have it at hand at the moment.
Here you go (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/blade.html). Interesting story, and I think the IOC is full of shit.

Actually, there's a legless person who is attempting to get himself allowed to run in the regular Olympics rather than just the Special Olympics. If I remember correctly, the argument against him being allowed is the belief that his space-age technology running prosthetics would "give him an unfair advantage over runners using their own legs". If you like, I can search for the article and put up a link, but I don't have it at hand at the moment.

Legless means no legs. Not even with prosthetics. If you've got prosthetics, then maybe.

But if these prosthetics are rated for better than human stress and output levels (cybernetics), I can see it being argued against flesh and blood human legs. It's supposed to be a level playing field, not a "I win cause I can afford better tech" competition.

Legless means no legs. Not even with prosthetics. If you've got prosthetics, then maybe.

But if these prosthetics are rated for better than human stress and output levels (cybernetics), I can see it being argued against flesh and blood human legs. It's supposed to be a level playing field, not a "I win cause I can afford better tech" competition.

But where do you draw the line? Lots of athletes get their eyes lasiked even when they don't have bad eyesight because it aids performance. We're already dealing with performance enhancing drugs in the sense that we have rules against them, but does anyone actually think enforcement is keeping up with the designers? What about specialized training regimens?

I don't have much in the way of answers--I'm just saying that it's not as black and white as it might seem at first glance.

Here you go (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/blade.html). Interesting story, and I think the IOC is full of shit.

I would read the article if it weren't for the bloody "blackberry" ad that takes up half the screen and can't be removed!!!

Let this be a warning to all who wish to click that link...

EDIT: Here's a tip...click the link and quickly press the 'stop' button at the top of your browser the second you see the text. If you do it in time, the ad never shows up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39n225IZfVg

But where do you draw the line? Lots of athletes get their eyes lasiked even when they don't have bad eyesight because it aids performance. We're already dealing with performance enhancing drugs in the sense that we have rules against them, but does anyone actually think enforcement is keeping up with the designers? What about specialized training regimens?

I don't have much in the way of answers--I'm just saying that it's not as black and white as it might seem at first glance.

True, but I imagine the line has to be drawn when you augment your body, be it chemically with drugs, DNA re-engineering, or with prosthetics.

And no, I don't mean stuff like surgery for scars or reattaching lost limbs. I mean real augmentations. Stuff that doesn't occur naturally no matter how much you train for it.

Otherwise we might as well throw out humans in the Olympics and replace them with cyborgs once the technology becomes available.

Kind of hard to miss that he's blind.
you assume the person doing the hiring was face to face with the person ... how would you know he is blind lets say over the phone or through an adgency or online

Otherwise we might as well throw out humans in the Olympics and replace them with cyborgs once the technology becomes available.
I'd watch that. :D

...how would you know he is blind lets say over the phone or through an adgency or online

I would ask him if had ever seen Stevie Wonder's house.

you assume the person doing the hiring was face to face with the person ... how would you know he is blind lets say over the phone or through an adgency or online
What kind of place would hire somebody without a face to face interview? Even going through an agency..the agency does the interviewing. Somewheres along the way there IS the initial contact..

What kind of place would hire somebody without a face to face interview? Even going through an agency..the agency does the interviewing. Somewheres along the way there IS the initial contact..

Not necessarily I have been hired for contract without a face to face interview before, some rather big named companies do it if you are not going to be on their permanent staff