Especially if used multiple times? For example, "MUST work independently. MUST be a team player. MUST have 5 years experience. MUST be able to handle a fast-paced environment. MUST have reliable transportation."
It comes across as the employer being overly demanding, unrealistic and possibly difficult to work for. Or I am just being picky?
A lot of people get stuck with the belief that that's just the way life is.
If you see red flags, then you may consider yourself as armed with pertinent information in regards to the decision whether or not to move forward or past.
They should be trying to court people with selling points.
Sometimes though you do have to say must, like 'must be able to work in a highly stressful environment' because if it is, and that's the nature of the work, you can't be a shrinking violet.
'Must have experience with X software'. - Maybe they don't want to invest the time and money training someone.
Why are so many companies these days that don't train their employees properly? I can't read the boss' mind and know what they want. It's unclear expectations. And when employee doesn't do it a certain way, they get yelled at because they didn't meet said expectations. Different companies do things differently. Not a fan of this whole "sink or swim" mentality. It's lazy. The better trained employees are, the more happier they are, less turnover and thus productive ---> increased revenue (Duh!).
In business you hire slow and fire quick. The idea is that you don't want to hire someone who isn't a right fit and if they are troublesome you get rid of them because retraining and hoping they get better isn't cost efficient.
I don't agree with that approach at all. I bet those kinds of workplaces suffer from poor morale. This seems to be a "new" thing since the recession of 2008. I could be wrong about that.