Page 5 | 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?

YourRealMauveSnake · 2025-05-15T11:45:39+00:00

I keep seeing jobs advertised as hybrid (e.g. 1-2 days in the office) but loads of people applying clearly have no intention of ever commuting. It clogs up the process for people who actually can attend in person and probably makes employers less flexible overall. Is this just me being petty or is it actually a thing?

Original poster

YourRealMauveSnake · 15/05/2025 14:39

AnonymousBleep · 15/05/2025 14:29

I don't think it's a thing that loads of people applying for hybrid working positions have no intention of ever coming in. Surely you'd just get booted out during your probation period if this was the case?

That’s the ideal scenario, yes, and in some cases it does happen. But in reality, not all hiring managers enforce probation terms consistently, especially when they’re under pressure to fill roles or reluctant to go through the recruitment cycle all over again. What I’ve noticed is a growing pattern of people applying to hybrid roles with the hope or assumption that the in-office bit won’t be enforced - some even say so directly in interviews. So while it should be filtered out, the misalignment is still getting through and that’s where the frustration builds - for both the team and aligned candidates.

OP posts:

Abouttoblow · 15/05/2025 14:36

AndorTheRelentless · 15/05/2025 13:17

Why do people need to be in for 3 days a week?

Smacks of "we've paid for an office, so you have to use it" Some of us dont want to waste around 10 hours a week (hour in and hour out) traveling

Don't take hybrid roles then.

No one is forcing you to.

Original poster

YourRealMauveSnake · 15/05/2025 14:36

thegirlwithemousyhair · 15/05/2025 14:28

Surely candidates like this can be weeded out during interview ?
i.e. if they live 100 miles away then they should be scrutinised as to their commitment to come into the office 3 times a week or indeed, eliminated on the basis they live too far away and are therefore unlikely to stay in the job for long or be able to make it into the office 2 or 3 days week. Anyone applying who lives miles away is likely to be blagging it...

Yes, interviews should be the point where this gets clarified and in an ideal world, it is. But in practice, some candidates are still progressed even when their availability doesn’t really match the job’s hybrid expectations. Sometimes it’s down to poor questioning, other times it’s optimism from the hiring manager. And you’re right that location can raise flags but it’s not always straightforward. Some people do have genuine arrangements that make long commutes work (family nearby, etc). The issue is more about intention - when people apply knowing they won’t attend regularly, despite the role requiring it. That’s what creates the drag.

OP posts:

Fgfgfg · 15/05/2025 14:32

We had one of these at my last job. Required to be in 3 days a week and he kicked off as soon as he started. Left after 6 weeks because too much was being expected of him. Didn't think it was going to be enforced. Lived 120 miles away blah blah blah...
The job - university lecturer. We're required to be in 3 days a week because we teach 3 days a week 🙄It wasn't even all the time. This time of year when it's all exams and assignments we're at home getting on with marking. I won't be going into my current workplace for the next month because I'll be busy marking 100's of exams and assignments.

GeorgeMichaelsCat · 15/05/2025 14:30

Poopeepoopee · 15/05/2025 12:53

Thats for the recruitment team to worry about...'

Thats what happens when you get robots to recruit humans. It all falls to shite.

Bring back proper CVs and interviews with a well trained HR department.

No one does HR training anymore have you noticed?

Most HR roles I see advertised require CIPD.

AnonymousBleep · 15/05/2025 14:29

I don't think it's a thing that loads of people applying for hybrid working positions have no intention of ever coming in. Surely you'd just get booted out during your probation period if this was the case?

thegirlwithemousyhair · 15/05/2025 14:28

Surely candidates like this can be weeded out during interview ?
i.e. if they live 100 miles away then they should be scrutinised as to their commitment to come into the office 3 times a week or indeed, eliminated on the basis they live too far away and are therefore unlikely to stay in the job for long or be able to make it into the office 2 or 3 days week. Anyone applying who lives miles away is likely to be blagging it...

YearlySubscriptionRenewal · 15/05/2025 14:27

People have always applied for jobs without meeting all the requirement, or even most the requirements.

That's one of the reasons companies use recruitment agencies to short-list people.

People hear the job market is bad, they apply for anything. If they know the conditions are not perfect, they still take the role, and hope to change it later.

Try recruiting people when the role involves weekends! It's impossible.

SamDeanCas · 15/05/2025 14:27

They are breaching their contract if they are classed as hybrid and refusing to go into the office.

Annoyeddd · 15/05/2025 14:26

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 15/05/2025 14:25

Friendly reminder that you have the right to object to automated processing of your personal data and to request a human evaluation.

Show quote history

How if all the applications and automated

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 15/05/2025 14:26

I do agree with people pointing out other systemic problems in the job market/ society more generally.

I also agree this is A problem.

I think it’s more unfair on other colleagues who do go to the office as instructed - or maybe chose the job because they wanted one where they’d be worked together in the same room as colleagues- to then find the office is a ghost town.

I’m quite laid back about where I work personally but then I do see how it can cause problems of people essentially aren’t honest.

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 15/05/2025 14:25

Whatafustercluck · 15/05/2025 14:21

There are a lot of reasons why the job market is broken. I would include using AI for sifting CVs. So many great candidates getting rejected because 'computer says no'. There's a huge amount of competition for remote and hybrid roles, literally hundreds of people going for the same role. And then there's the employers who advertise roles and then withdraw them at the last minute.

Show quote history

Friendly reminder that you have the right to object to automated processing of your personal data and to request a human evaluation.

Original poster

YourRealMauveSnake · 15/05/2025 14:25

BobbyBiscuits · 15/05/2025 14:18

I don't know how you know what other candidates for a job may or may not do about hybrid working? Or where they live?

Unless of course that's happening in your own workplace and it's affecting your job or workload.

Then speak to HR and ask them if there can be a committee about recruitment practices and you'd like to head it up? That's obviously a bit tongue in cheek as I can't imagine anyone having time to want to do such things.

Or ask that you have more autonomy in recruitment of your team.

Fair enough… I’m not claiming to have insight into every candidate but I’ve supported shortlisting and interview logistics a few times recently across different teams and it’s come up now than once. In some cases, candidates themselves have openly said they’re hoping the in-office requirement won’t be enforced. That’s where the disconnect comes in, it’s not just guesswork.

I’m not looking to run HR, promise! I’m just reflecting on how this kind of misalignment slows things down and adds friction for everyone involved.

OP posts:

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 15/05/2025 14:24

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 15/05/2025 13:05

I agree with you, OP. You can't just apply for a job with clearly stated requirements and then kick off when you're given the job and actually expected to meet those requirements.

I'm sure these people would be far from happy if the employer suddenly decided to pay them a lot less than was originally stated and agreed a few weeks after they'd started.

I applied for a job with clearly stated requirements, planned to meet their requirements and they acted like I was completely mental for trying to attend as often as I did.

In a "soft" way, it's down to managers, and it's a soft way for managers looking for niche skills to give a pay boost to individuals they want to employ/retain.

My skills and qualifications are quite niche and I could earn double in the private sector quite easily. They don't actually need me in the office (more valuable to work across the country as hoc tbh), and it enables them to step outside of the pay scales a little to give me the London rate whilst living elsewhere.

My manager more or less told me to stop asking and spelling this out because I was anxious to attend appropriately.

Whatafustercluck · 15/05/2025 14:21

coxesorangepippin · 15/05/2025 13:57

This is not the reason the job market is broken

The job market is broken because of unfair distribution of wealth.

Shame on the skiving plebs for wanting a bit of WFH instead of bums on seats presenteesim 🤔

There are a lot of reasons why the job market is broken. I would include using AI for sifting CVs. So many great candidates getting rejected because 'computer says no'. There's a huge amount of competition for remote and hybrid roles, literally hundreds of people going for the same role. And then there's the employers who advertise roles and then withdraw them at the last minute.

Original poster

YourRealMauveSnake · 15/05/2025 14:19

BoredZelda · 15/05/2025 14:11

And you’ve seen that happen several times with the “few” times you’ve been “involved” in recruiting?

Show quote history

Yes, even being involved a handful of times is enough to notice patterns - especially when the same issues come up across different roles or rounds of recruitment. I’m not claiming to be a seasoned HR manager, just sharing what I’ve repeatedly seen: candidates applying for hybrid roles with no intention of commuting and that misalignment causing avoidable delays or frustrations. I’ve said from the start - it’s not everyone but it’s common enough to be noticeable.

OP posts:

BobbyBiscuits · 15/05/2025 14:18

I don't know how you know what other candidates for a job may or may not do about hybrid working? Or where they live?

Unless of course that's happening in your own workplace and it's affecting your job or workload.

Then speak to HR and ask them if there can be a committee about recruitment practices and you'd like to head it up? That's obviously a bit tongue in cheek as I can't imagine anyone having time to want to do such things.

Or ask that you have more autonomy in recruitment of your team.

RitaAndFrank · 15/05/2025 14:17

I agree op.

im job hunting at the moment. I’m ruling out any that I know I’d have trouble committing to. It lowers my opportunities but I wouldn’t dream of having the cheek to suddenly change the goalposts once my feet are under the table.

Original poster

YourRealMauveSnake · 15/05/2025 14:17

ThatCyanCat · 15/05/2025 14:08

Surely if someone refuses to accept the conditions of the job, they simply don't get offered the job? And if they try to stop coming in after they're employed, you deal with it through the official channels, up to and including dismissal?

Yes, in theory it’s that simple and I agree that if someone refuses to meet the terms, the process should filter them out or deal with them during probation. But in practice, enforcement is often inconsistent. Hiring managers may be under pressure to fill roles quickly or hesitant to dismiss someone too soon, even when there’s a clear mismatch.

My point is really about the growing pattern of people applying to hybrid roles as if they’re remote and how that mismatch is becoming more visible and frustrating for everyone involved especially when expectations were clearly stated up front.

OP posts:

ARichtGoodDram · 15/05/2025 14:14

Think there is just as much a problem the other way.

DS1 is looking for another job after "2/3 days a week in the office, occasionally more" actually turned out to be "in the office every day with occasionally 2 days wfh when it's very very very quiet".

And not just small employers doing this either - JCB removed pretty much all wfh from people on a whim and basically said "well fuck off elsewhere then" when BIL pointed out he'd been employed on a 2 day wfh/3 office contract just 3 months before

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 15/05/2025 14:14

ConkerGame · 15/05/2025 14:10

https://standout-cv.com/stats/leadership-statistics-uk#:~:text=90%25%20of%20FTSE%20100%20CEOs,are%2010%20times%20more%20profitable.

90% of FTSE 100 CEOs are men, and 96% are white.

Show quote history

Presumably that’s in the UK ( where until fairly recently the large majority of the population were white, and a lot of women took career breaks so we’re unlikely to make CEO).

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 15/05/2025 14:13

I’ve seen this quite a lot too.

People take the job, do the 2/3 days (or whatever) in the office for a month or so, and then either let it slide or start coming up with reasons why they can’t.

Either it’s a different excuse every day or they ask for an exemption because “I live so far away”. But you applied for this job, in this location!

And don’t get me started on the people who moved away during lockdown and then wanted an exemption…

Parker231 · 15/05/2025 14:13

Babywithnoname · 15/05/2025 13:05

I'd suggest it's management issue rather than recruitment

Edited

It’s a candidate issue - if the role involves coming into the office a couple of days a week, don’t be surprised if this is enforced if you get the job. If you fail to come in as per your contract of employment, don’t be surprised if you are dismissed if you fail to comply.

Brefugee · 15/05/2025 14:12

BoredZelda · 15/05/2025 14:01

Sure there are. But it is also true that in 2000, 96.4 percent of CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies were white men. By 2020 that had reduced to 85.8.

Similar figures are found in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250. Incidentally they are also paid less.

Given this group of companies is generally considered to be reflective of the employment market as a whole, it is unlikely the figures are much different for the rest of the market.

You are correct it isn’t the 1950s, but given in the 65 years from when it was created in 1955 and 2000 there was only an improvement of 4.6% in the figures, we’re not as far past the 1950s as you’d like to think.

Show quote history

i can't remember where it was, but i'm sure i read an article a couple of years ago stating that there were more CEOs called David than there were female CEOs.

That says it all for me.

In one post pp intimated that recruting is difficult - that means they aren't offering the right package. And that may just be more WFH than office days or something. Negotiate with the best candidate.

ConkerGame · 15/05/2025 14:12

there are plenty of studies showing white males are by far the majority of CEOs, it’s not a secret!