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

I would agree with you that they shouldn’t project an assumption based on that, especially if OP gives a detailed plan of how they are looking to manage this.

However I do also see how an employer needs flexibility especially for client management (you may be required to meet them) and that will not always fall on the days you have planned to be in the office. So you would need to be able to come in sometimes with little notice. You would also have team building days / team meetings that may fall outside of the usual days you’re there and a lot of the time employees get funny about it. You see it on MN all the time - “I am usually in the office Monday and Tuesday and my employer wants me to come in on Monday and Thursday, I can’t afford to book a hotel twice in the week. This is so unfair”.

Well if they say 'remote, UK' and you are in the UK then that's not likely to be why you weren't hired the other times. The jobs where I work do not say that at all.

The highest concentration of jobs are available in major cities, as is where the OP is looking to travel to – by train – so a 25-mile distance policy in a non-comparable location is not at all relevant (and nor is it good practice regardless).

Is your location on your LinkedIn?

25 miles from the nearest city to me would give you quite a lot of options! Although I'd stretch it a little bit further so you caught all the people living in the next city along rather than relying on the villages to supply all your talent. 😁

Of course, we all live and work in London, nowhere else exists in the UK. 😁

I didn't say it wasn't real-world practice. I said it was poor practice.

I’m a manager and I work in a setting where the expectation is staff spend an average of 3 days a week in the office.

90% of people I’ve managed who live a long commute away have ended up moaning about the commute, trying to renegotiate their on-site days, arriving late or leaving early and failing to turn up for in-person meetings with a series of excuses.

Which means 10% don’t of course. These are nearly always the ones who recognise that such a long commute is unsustainable and so arrange accommodation.

I get it. I have an hour commute, which can take double the time if there are roadworks or traffic is unexpectedly heavy. But I used to work in a setting where every working day was on site, so this is still an improvement.

Generally I really support WFH but I think some people
got too used to it during Covid and failed to see it as a temporary thing. OTOH some companies have mandated a return to the office without good reason when they’d actually get more from their employees by letting them WFH or hybrid work. Each workplace should review on a meaningful set of criteria IMO and wages should to some extent reflect the inconvenience of commuting for those who have no choice but to be on site. This would be much fairer on jobs such as emergency services workers, care home staff, etc.

What a poor policy. Most well-known commuter towns to London are at least 30-40 miles from their closest mainline station.

I'm thinking more of scenarios like a recruitment I was recently involved in where the final 3 applications were all good. It was a London-based job. One was in North Wales, one in the North-East, one in the home counties. Location became the deciding factor so the home counties candidate got the role and all is well. This is more akin to the OP's situation and feels more real world than the ideal that no one will consider her far-flung location a factor, which hasn't been her experience so far and may not be unless she's the outstanding applicant in other ways.

I'm glad to hear those instances are illegal!

Leaving aside everything about the rest of us, for you @Isitameproblem - sounds like you have a plan, and the salary expectations to support it. I'd consider putting something specific in your cover letter to note that you are aware that in person working is expected and then have some very specific plans to note in an interview if you are called in. Sounds like other institutions have more flexible options available than where I work so hard to generalise.

My company has a policy as to what is a 'reasonable distance' for a commute - I think it's 25 miles away from base office.

No, it isn’t! But then I didn’t raise it. I just think it’s really important to be factually correct about what is and isn’t legal in this space, given the impact it could have on someone to get it wrong.

I would just say you are looking to relocate.

And this is why 'common-sense' is a very slippery term. It uses bias to make decisions, leading to overconfidence in accuracy and creating a false consensus.

It's not common-sense that Alan gave up the job after 3 weeks and didn't come in til 10am every morning so therefore we won't be hiring Steve because the singular thing they had in common is they both lived X distance away.

Commonly it's the 'fault' of the hiring manager to not strongly make it be known and reiterate that 'X in-house working policy' or strict timekeeping is a non-negotiable.

An hour?! I think in London you'd be hard pressed to find many people with less than that, given the cost of house prices more centrally.
I live in greater London (13 miles from office) and have a commute that is about 1 1/4-1/2 hour door to door and would be astounded if someone thought that was an issue. I get there for 8.45/9 so it's not any of my employer's business that I have to live in zone 5 to afford a house in which I can raise my family!

I live 3 hours from my work and make the two days in office a week, at least. I'm flexible and see it as my problem, not theirs, that I am not local. It was/is our intention to move closer, but after nearly a year, and dh's job going complicated, I can't see this happening for at least another 18 months. It's expensive basically, there are not the cheap hotels I thought there would be (I average about £45 a night) and the travel is 40-50 quid return. But it was still worth it for the promotion and restart of annual rises (I was top of lower grade) and the challenge and lovely workplace. So, you could do as I did and say you intend to move, but will commute until then. I meant it, and still hope to.

The 'pre-judgements' and 'assumptions' you talk about are just common sense to most people, probably straying into no-brainer territory. Sure there will cases where applicants living 3+ hours away have exceptional qualities that put them ahead of more local candidates, but otherwise it's not unrealistic to believe the commute could become an issue. It's easy to say if it becomes a performance issue then get rid of them, but that ignores PP's very good point that recruiting is a costly and time-consuming process (as is getting rid of someone!) and it's better to get it right first time.

I do get your point. But for a better candidate wouldn't you accept the commute is their issue?

Example: My first ever employer only employed people from a ten mile radius. At interview I said I was 20 miles away, they were very doubtful about me. I got the job and ended up being one of their star employees with all sorts of awards etc.

All other things being equal then yes get someone local, but for a better candidate I'd be happy that they manage their commute.

And it's not relevant to whether it's poor practice to make assumptions on if an applicant can perform well at a job based on where they happen to live.