AIBU to apply for hybrid roles even though I'm nowhere near the workplace?

Reading this thread with interest, both as an employee and hiring manager.

As an employee I took on my current role a couple of years ago knowing it would mean a significant commute by train (roughly two hours each way). It wouldn’t be my first choice but there are many advantages to my role which outweigh the, at times tiring, commute. I’m mid-40s and have never commuted more than about 45 minutes before so it was an adjustment. Part of the reason I accepted the role is that my company are very, very understanding and flexible. We are expected to be in two days a week but depending on the needs of the business you could be in three days one week and a single day the next. My company understands that life sometimes happens and are willing to adapt things as long as the service we are paid to offer is provided to an agreed standard. I choose to take an earlier train and arrive at the office roughly 30 minutes before my official start time. It helps that, depending on my schedule, I can leave slightly earlier and work from the train on certain tasks meaning a better balance.

As a hiring manager this does sometimes influence my thinking but more in the informal chats I’ll have with prospective candidates. We get applications for roles from around the country as we are seen as a prestigious place to work. We are based in London and have colleagues who commute from Yorkshire and Wales and stay over so it’s doable with proper planning. During Covid the company made the decision to focus on recruiting the right talent above any other factor as hybrid became the norm.

When I get approached about roles from people who would have a long commute I’m always upfront with them because even four hours a day can be a bit of a slog. I’m clear about the in-office expectation and that although unlikely it could increase. It’s up to them if they apply but they know what they’re signing up for. As a commuter who makes the effort to get to the office on time I expect the same from others, especially as the workplace is so flexible about things. Any hint of taking the piss would and has been swiftly clamped down on but I don’t overly focus on this when hiring as it’s about the right person for the role.

Highly niche examples aren'y relevant.

“Luckily that’s not allowed”

Untrue and depends on the employer and role.

My DH has recently started a hybrid role in London. We’re 3-4 hours away. He does 3 days per fortnight. The higher London salary covers travel and hotel. His job is very niche though. Luckily kids are teens now. He wouldn’t have done it when they were small. Going well so far. He enjoys the change of scene being in central London. Drinks after work etc.

Employers have a duty of care, and if someone is travelling long distances, it will affect their health and chance of a road crash brought on by tiredness.

That is categorically not the reason why employers find themselves concerned over long-distance travel or insist on making it their business where potential employees live – as is evidence on this thread, it's the assumption that they will have poor attendance, lacking work ethic and a tendency to 'grumble' about commuting.

Never mind inability because of bad weather to get to their employer's premises.

Bad weather – such as high winds ice or snow – prohibits most people from travelling, regardless of location.

At the top, in the banner bit, it often says the city where you're based. I think it's pretty usual.

I've got:
Name
Current role and organisation
University
Home city

I didn't do that deliberately - I think it's the default as my entire profile is the default option.

We’re mandated to do two days in the office(central London). Had a candidate who lived in a village not particularly close to Portsmouth. At the shortlisting stage we emphasised the in-office requirement.

No problem at all, said the candidate, he’s very keen to come to London twice a week.

Day before the interview (panel obviously a nightmare to set up in terms of dates/availability) candidate says actually could his interview be virtual.

Two hours after interview, candidate say’s actually they’ve he’s just secured a job in Portsmouth.

When we have a very large surplus of good candidates I would not take forward ones who don’t live a sensible commutable distance. If for technical specialist or senior roles with few good candidates in the market I would be more flexible. But even then I would be wary of how well it would work out for a variety of reasons.

That said a good friend has recently taken a hybrid job where he stays away 2 night per week by his employer’s office. Importantly though this seems to be quite a standard arrangement for many people for this company as where the people with the specialist skills they need can be recruited from are rarely close to where this organisation is based. If it is the norm it will be much easier.

But your home city/town? Most people have that on their profiles.

I think it depends on the industry. In my industry and hour commute is standard 1.5+h not uncommon even before COVID and we were in person 5 days a week. There's a small pool of people qualified for the jobs and a small number of companies hiring the roles so it's always to be expected that you might end up with a long commute or paying for overnight accommodation in the short or long term.
When I first got my job I was 2-2.5h drive in non rush hour traffic away for the first year. I had family in the area so I stayed with them during the week. I would have got a room in a house share otherwise. My work only cared about me being on site 40h a week covering the core hours of 10-4 each day. It was my business how I managed my life. I had done this previously in another role but that was just a 3 month position

What does your own current location say on there though? Or do you not say? I agree that being upfront about location and addressing it from the start may be helpful if it's turning out to be a problem down the line.

I disagree, unless it can be shown it is a proxy for stopping people from applying based on other reasons.

Employers have a duty of care, and if someone is travelling long distances, it will affect their health and chance of a road crash brought on by tiredness. Never mind inability because of bad weather to get to their employer's premises.

I do however think that far too many employers insist on a certain number of days for the wrong reasons. Not dealing with poor performers, for example.

This!

There are many biases in recruiting. Does the person write well? Do you think they'll fit in with the team? Do you feel they'll show up on time and be available where you need them and when?

None of these are protected characteristics. They're all perfectly legitimate things for an employer to investigate when selecting.

She's looking to travel to Bristol or Plymouth, not London. You can't compare London's travel infrastructure to that of Bristol and Plymouth.

Yep - my employer (med/large public sector) was quite slow off the mark, post-COVID, in finalising our hybrid policy. During that time, no one was applying to work for us. Once we got out policy sorted out (min 2 days per week in the office) things got back to normal. But if ever one of our departments fails to state 'hybrid' on the advert, there are less applications and/or lots of enquiries about hybrid. The world has changed.

If all OP's previous roles say 'remote' then that might add to the 'assumption' you'd prefer to do remote rather than commute, which is different from, say, a candidate a long way away but with a track record of hybrid roles at a distance.

As per my previous example, the two candidates who lived 3+ hours away had previously been in roles local to them, from which one could 'assume' that's their preference and that the job market being as it is, they'd had to look further afield and the commute would be their compromise. Maybe they'd have stuck it out, we'll never know, but it would have been different if they lived far away but were already commuting in a hybrid role. People can say they're willing to do all kinds of things when they want the job, but as many PPs' experience has shown, that can wear off soon when the reality of the long commute kicks in. Which is 'poor practice' on the part of employees but is still going to happen and an employer is bound to consider it when weighing up the pros and cons of all the candidates.

Ah - well then I would consider being really up front from the start and then you can avoid wasting everyone's time if it's not the right setup for you. It sounds like you're able and willing to manage 1-2 days in the office a week but you'd need to know ahead of time when that was so you could book your travel and hotel - and can only travel overnight. That might not work logistically for many depending on what they mean by 'hybrid' (as others have noted, that can mean anything at all really).

yup, as I have said multiple times, several equally good candidates for one post.