To think people applying for hybrid roles while living nowhere near the office - then refusing to come in - are part of why the job market feels so broken right now?

And you'd be wrong. It's an employee issue. If the job states get your arse into work then do so.

Within the tech industry, there is a well-known true story about a talented developer who was not offered an interview because he didn't have enough experience with a certain software. They needed 10 years of experience and were not willing to be flexible on it. He couldn't apply because it had only been 6 years since he developed the software 😂

Some recruiters are utterly useless.

What jobs are you seeing advertised and also seeing the applicants? Is this in your workplace?

Managerial optimism - I would be questioning their judgment if they were making recruitment decisions based on optimism. Ive experienced the fall-out of that -usually means other employees end up picking up the slack..

I guess if you want to tease out whether a candidate's intentions are legit then you have to be very clear in interview that in the event that they are unable to make it into the office as per the contractual ageement then this would potentially result in being let go. I am not a recruiter but if I was on the interview panel I'd go after that issue because everything else is secondary to that... Cant stand ppl who lie/time wasters...

well yes, but the OP is specifically complaining about candidates.

But i am also, frankly, sick of seeing ads where it is clear you need postgrad qualifications and 20 years of experience but they want to pay you at entry level. So a dose of reality for recruiters doesn't go amiss.

I don't think you're being unreasonable but I think I'm surprised to hear that it's a widespread problem. I'd expect people who "refuse" to do the job they were hired for, including coming in to the office when needed, to be fired right away.

If a company wants someone enough, they may have to adjust their expectations.

Equally, if a person wants the job enough, they may have to adjust their expectations.

But in the current job market, it's usually the employer who gets to choose. It's pretty rare that someone is such a 'catch' that they can get the employers to make special accommodation for them before they've even worked at the company.

Just because you can do your role at home doesn’t mean no requirement to go in. Who do you think your DC will learn a role from when everyone is working in their bedroom? We are seeing the consequences of that with poor quality, knowledge etc. I’d have struggled hugely in the early years without learning from those office conversations etc

Or indeed people who need to communicate disabilities after being hired.
I have spans where I need to wfh because of a disability. Once I've got the role I can discuss it as a reasonable adjustment. If I only apply for jobs in my sector fully remote that's about one a month mostly full time. And declaring a disability too early is risky

I have applied for jobs before, and during the interview (sometimes the 2nd or 3rd) i have discussed aspects of the role that i want to negotiate. Salary is one, start times another. Hybrid, had it been A Thing back then, would have been another.

If a company wants someone enough, they may have to adjust their expectations. It is also perfectly reasonable to apply for hybrid roles, and have a plan of how you will get there, that you don't want to or need to share with a potential employer (for eg, you might know someone who lives nearby who will let you stay there a few nights a month)

Employers, especially recruiters, really need to treat their pool of possible employees as grown up adults. And behave like grown up recruiters when checking the applications.

I am tired of all the excuses, the living miles away one particularly gets me, why on earth apply for a job so far away? I’d be embarrassed to be constantly making excuses. Definitely one of the downsides to Covid.

If the employer has specified some time in the office, then clearly that is important to them, otherwise they would not make it a condition of employment.

I would say an employee who tries to flout the rules which they agreed to when accepting the job is unlikely to be 'worth keeping'.

Those people are always going to exist. It doesn't matter what the policy is, someone will flout it consistently, hybrid working today, taking extra days holiday at peak time tomorrow.

You cannot do anything to stop that other than expect the business rules are enforced. And how many of us know an employee that gets away with murder day in day out? I've met loads, nothing touches them. They are like death and taxes, a surity in life

You could say the same for people who apply for FT roles and only want part time, or want flexible hours for dependency commitments etc.

Some people apply for jobs knowing they will want to negotiate hours, location, salary and other perks. Interviews are two way processes and it isn't and has never been exclusive to hybrid roles that expectations may vary.

If there is a communication issue during the recruitment process that is the employers issue not the applicants🤷‍♀️

Unfortunately more and more people have an entitlement attitude these days.

THis is just ONE example !

As you say, a waste of time for all those invovled.

If I have ever seen a job that interests me, I ask EARLY on (prior to applying) if hours could be compressed / reduced etc.
If the answer is no, then I either apply with that knowledge or don't.

Never have the audacity to waste their time (or mine during the laboruous application)

Depends on how the employer wants to run their organisation. Some feel that face to face works best.

I’m in two minds about this.
On one hand, the employer is reasonable to expect employees to follow their conditions of employment. If they can’t, they should leave and go somewhere else.
However, if an employee is worth keeping, I don’t think it should matter where they work. If they can do the work well enough at home, why not let them? If they can’t, then enforce going into the office.

That does sound annoying. But you can't really blame the candidates.

I've found most companies won't offer an interview unless you live within x miles, to be honest. That is why it irritates me so much. I'm sick of getting rejection emails that read, "We're really impressed with your experience/qualifications, etc., but this is a hybrid role, and you live outside our hiring area. We will keep your CV on file for any remote opportunities." One of the companies was literally opposite my sister's front door. It would have taken me less than 30 seconds to walk to the office from my bedroom.

I've also been turned down after interviews for more local roles because I'm not yet driving, and the interviewer decided that my commute would be "too much". This was despite my being very clear in the interview (because I was asked repeatedly about it) that I was fine with the travel time and was learning to drive anyway.

Sounds like a very incompetent hiring process, doesn't it?

Becuase a lot of roles are advertised as hybrid but in reality they only require you to go on once a month.
My last three roles bave been like this. Advertised as hybrid, the company official policy is say come in three days a week, but in reality the role is mostly remote due to the specific team that you are in and the manager.
So for me, I would apply to hybrid roles and then make a call during the hiring process if the level of hybrid for that role is suited to me.

Your evidence assumes that 1. everyone is employed by a FTSE 100 company, and 2. the WFH policies are wholly CEO lead. I'd dispute both those statements.