A passing grade on the Turing test just indicates intelligence is possible, but excludes assured intelligence in the absence of communication ability, which is why I argue it is not a sufficient guarantee of intelligence.
You make a good point with the hiring example about the distinction between "intelligent" and "intelligent enough to do some things" - our disagreement may be stemming from us having differing definitions of "an intelligence". Need to think about it.
X is a demonstration of intelligence says nothing about not X.
If you can design something that passes an arbitrary touring tests yes it is intelligent. For example I could teach it any subject that works in text format. It could then pass an open ended essay test. And get a reasonable essay.
Now, you could do the same thing with a pig and it would fail the test despite being more intelligent than the average dog. That just means there are limits.
Cost and accuracy are obvious trade-offs, but sometimes you are willing to trade say cost and false positives to avoid false negatives say, a mass screening for HIV in a blood sample. In that case you need a cheap test and while a false positive has minimal cost a false negative could be deadly.
Highering is the opposite case. Micdonalds want's a cheap test (interview + background) and as long they get enough acceptable low level candidate from their pool that's enough.
As such the turing test can fit the second example. A hypothetical AI could hold a huge range of real jobs even if limited to purely text based communications.
PS: Let's flip it. A super intelligent AI in a box that can't communicate in any form. Without IO it's indistinguishable from a space heater.