Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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?

187 replies

YourRealMauveSnake · 15/05/2025 12:45

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?

OP posts:
Original poster
YourRealMauveSnake · 15/05/2025 13:20

flossydog · 15/05/2025 13:13

I live about 20 minutes from the office and I still only manage to get in once or twice a week. Commuting sucks. It's reasonable people want to avoid it. So long as the work is being done, I don't see the issue. And if not going in enough is detrimental to their work, these people won't pass probation, right?

They've always been people applying (and getting!) jobs they're not actually best suited to. It's inevitable. I don't think the WFH trend really moves the needle on this.

I get that, commuting does suck and I don’t blame anyone for wanting flexibility. My issue is more with people applying for roles clearly marked as hybrid but treating them like they’re remote-only. I’m not against WFH at all, it’s more the mismatch between what’s advertised and what applicants are realistically willing to do that seems to be muddying the waters. You’re right though, it’s not a brand new issue, perhaps just one that feels more visible now.

OP posts:
OhamIreally · 15/05/2025 13:19

Yes it annoys me too OP. Don’t apply for a job in London then moan you can’t come in.

I have colleagues who live in 4 bedroom houses complaining about the cost of getting to work. They want it both ways. I want the London salary but accept I’m never going to be able to afford a home like theirs because I live in London.

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

flossydog · 15/05/2025 13:13

I live about 20 minutes from the office and I still only manage to get in once or twice a week. Commuting sucks. It's reasonable people want to avoid it. So long as the work is being done, I don't see the issue. And if not going in enough is detrimental to their work, these people won't pass probation, right?

They've always been people applying (and getting!) jobs they're not actually best suited to. It's inevitable. I don't think the WFH trend really moves the needle on this.

Toomuch2019 · 15/05/2025 13:10

Completely agree op. This happened with someone I recruited last year who it was made very clear to our 3 day per week requirement. Months and months of complaining at the rest of the team, being grumpy and and trying get around it ensued and just made it a for horrible environment. Why apply for a job with very clear requirements if you don’t want to meet them?

JudgeJ · 15/05/2025 13:09

YourRealMauveSnake · 15/05/2025 12:59

Fair but it still affects real candidates when a hiring process gets flooded with people who don’t intend to follow the basic terms (like showing up in person). I agree that automation hasn’t helped but I don’t think it excuses applicants gaming the system either. Both things can be true.

Show quote history

Surely if someone fails to do the job they were employed to do, including in the place they were employed to do it, the the company can get rid of them. Imagine teachers preferring to teach on line and the parents had the children at home every day!

Babywithnoname · 15/05/2025 13:05

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

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.

Drearycommuter · 15/05/2025 13:05

I can only speak for me, but my role is based in London (no other options) but I can't afford to live in London anymore.

I do come in weekly - I'm sure my boss would like me to come in more but it takes 2hrs each way (used to take far less but the trains are slower) and costs £250 a month commute for one day a week.

I'm a single parent with little support. I've already been pushed out of the city I was born and raised in - I will try my hardest not to be pushed out of my career due to my ability to be in the office at 9am.

BrentfordForever · 15/05/2025 13:01

You’re right OP

has affected the market 😶

Original poster
YourRealMauveSnake · 15/05/2025 12:59

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?

Fair but it still affects real candidates when a hiring process gets flooded with people who don’t intend to follow the basic terms (like showing up in person). I agree that automation hasn’t helped but I don’t think it excuses applicants gaming the system either. Both things can be true.

OP posts:
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?