What's the point you're trying to make here? That the role is bad because it implies needing to work from an office? Or that the daily hours are long enough to cross the boundaries of two meal times? Or you take offense to the idea that meals are eaten in the office, as opposed to somewhere else? I'm beyond confused.
I think the point is that the wording doesn't distinguish on the workplace, so it reads as the benefit being "you get to have 2 meals a day" in general life, which for most people having 3 meals a day would feel restrictive and overbearing that their employer would be dictating such details of their life.
I'm sure it was actually intended as "2 free meals at work", and while it may just be poor written communication, it could also speak to an assumption about how much work defines the lives of the employees.
They don't? I'd love to get a free breakfast at like 9:15 and lunch at 1. That's not even remotely long hours. Others might work 10-7 and like having lunch and dinner. That's two sets of hours where 2 meals makes great sense. When I was single and living alone, I would have loved that benefit. The breakfast version, I would still do now, since I'm not really fully ready to eat until after 9.
Most people have dinner at like 7pm. It does vary by country but I'm pretty sure that's what they do in the US. 5pm would be an extremely early dinner.
