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?

I get this a lot. Couldn't be clearer at interview that requirement is minimum two days in office. All good with candidate and then as soon as they are hired theres an issue with leaving to dog home alone or doing the school run or getting child care or general anxiety about the outside world or, or, or.... It's frustrating and causes bad feeling amongst the team members who do show up when required.

There's lots of bottlenecks right now. A big one is that AI has made applying to a lot of jobs quicker. Then there's the job sites which persist on sending jobs which very rarely match what someone's filters say and who have made applying with CV basivally so quick there's no point checking . And the people uploading jobs who frequently mark hybrid roles as remote but bury that in the very long description.

If you have a veryk long job application process people are going to speed up applying and apply for anything that evwn vaguely fits because they need to work. That means some will drop out too.

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

I applied for a hybrid role 4 hours away. I do two days with an overnight stay and everyone is happy with that.

They knew where I lived, I clarified upon offer what the expectation was and it was fine and has worked well.

So if I hadn’t applied I wouldn’t have found this job.

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.

That’s what probationary periods are for.

If there is something for you as an employer that is an absolute red line, you make that abundantly clear at interview. Very few people will then take a job if they know it’s a deal breaker. If during the recruitment process you have someone who lives really far from the office, you make doubly sure.

But people not being entirely upfront at interviews and turning out to be unsuitable, is nothing new. It’s just fashionable at the moment to pick hybrid working as the thing to whine about.

Equally OP it might be that employers need to accept that the world of work has changed and that employees have different expectations now.

People working remotely also can mean that employers have a wider and more diverse pool of employees to select from, rather than just people who live in close proximity to the office.

If there is a genuine need for people to be on site then it has to be made clear in the job ad and at the interview stage.

But things like 'we want you on site just because we have an office building' or 'the manager can't deal with managing people remotely' or 'we don't trust grown adults to work remotely' is not genuine need...

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?

Well, because they haven't. Did you read the OP?

lots of people apply for jobs where they don't fit all the criteria. If a company really thinks they're worth it, they will overlook some of that, so that also includes hybrid working.

It may be possible, for eg, to negotiate to come to the office twice a month with travel and a hotel included so they can work 4 days in the office. Only the company will know if they think that's worth it.

It is barmy to only apply for jobs where you fulfil 100% of the criteria in the ad.

I think when you talk about “refusing” it’s a type of silent refusing, so they find reasons not to etc. which makes it harder to manage but agree it should be addressed both at recruitment, and during probation.

When I chaired a meeting for 55 people and gave no teams option, but said people could ask me if they needed it as an adjustment, I had attendance of all except one in person.

It was a lot of effort and needed several months notice but it was worth it. It doesn’t work for more regular co-locating.

There have always been people who have not lived near enough their work to commute. It never used to be a question of not going in, simply that people had to make their own arrangements - renting a room, hotel, buying a flat nearby etc etc. I have no time for people who get a job then say they cant go in - unless there is a material change in their circumstances.

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.

There have always been many such patterns. In my industry around 30% of applicants for any role are based in completely different countries from the site-based role they're applying for, even before working from home was so common. If recruiters are getting frustrated over this one thing in particular, that's very odd.

This is up to the interviewers and HR to make sure the interviewees know they are expected in or probation fails.

Sometimes people live in more remote areas and for various reasons can't move to where there are more jobs. Being able to work remotely or in a hybrid fashion is helpful to those who don't have those opportunities when expected to attend a place of work on a daily basis.

But the onus is on the recruiting team to ensure policies and consequences for not attending on expected days are properly communicated. The management and HR team are to ensure that probation is failed when the employees don't meet their contractual obligations.

Blaming the employee is a bit low, each workplace has someone or more than one in place to ensure things happen as expected, where is their responsibility to ensure everyone gets fair treatment?

In the example you give, it’s fine to negotiate a WFH version of the job at interview. Not fair to try and negotiate that afterwards, having stopped another applicant from getting it who would have been successful if you’d been upfront at your interview.

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 🤔

How do you know they're not willing to come in?

I apply for jobs in Leeds, Derby, and Nottingham despite living in the NE because I have family I could stay with in those areas. It irritates when it is assumed I won't/can't attend the office. I wouldn't have applied if I couldn't do the job described.

We’re hybrid now, one set day a month in the office, otherwise you come in if you need to/want to. Suits me fine.

I’ve recruited twice since we went hybrid. First time I included we were open to hybrid working and received hundreds of applications from all over the world. Took ages to shortlist. Second time I stipulated hybrid after a qualifying period with weekly in person work in <name of town>. Still had some applications from other continents but much better than the first time. What really naffed me off was the number of people who just sent a cv without including any additional info setting out their relevant experience and skills, complete waste of everyone’s time and obviously not very interested in actually doing the job.

I have no idea of the statistics, but working in the professional part of the construction industry, this is definitely a thing.

I agree OP. I’ve seen it at my company. People taking roles clearly stated as hybrid 2 days in and then complaining and acting victimised when the company tries to enforce it.

It’s strange behaviour. It also makes it harder for people living a distance from an office but still willing to travel, to get jobs. This is because employers are becoming more wary they’ll hire a chancer.