To be losing the will to live with staff who chosen a job with a long commute & then complain about it

[Benibidibici]

I work in a well paid industry - think 6 figure salaries.

We've made really clear through hiring processes that roles are hybrid, not remote, we as a team really get a lot from collaborative working so we expect 2 days a week in the central office. There's flex about which days but we ask that people try to mostly hit the core days of tues/weds/thurs. As a line manager I'm not watching the clock and we are happy to play around with what time people start & finish - eg. One guy leaves at 4.30 to collect his kids by 5.30 & this is fine.

We've hired 3 people this year and made all this clear and they're all grumbling about their commutes and regularly asking to come in less. We offer what we can in terms of flexibility but when we insist we need them in 2 days, they are basically sulking. Its clear one of them in particular never had any intention of coming to the office more than a day or so every 2-3 weeks and expected to get away with remote working.

Its really frustrating. We were honest about what we needed and people just seem to think they can insist.

Why do people do this? One lady has moved 2 hours from our city 3 years ago, and during that time consistently keeps applying for and taking jobs here rather than in the large city where she now lives. Her husband also works in our industry and between them they'll have an income of £200k plus, so they aren't forced to live in a cheaper area.

Its really shit for me to have to go through the unpleasant process of monitoring people's attendance & imposing formal consequences etc (I'm not that kind of manager at all) because they took a job they don't want to turn up for.

What can I do to stop people doing this?

Also, if we read back to what OP actually wrote, she just says she had other applicants. No mention of how good they were or what they said about the remote working, merely that had she known she could've considered one of them. There was no mention of other applicants being happy to come in. The wording is quite interesting, I think.

I would expect those hiring to use their brains to critically appraise what the candidate is saying and make a judgement as to the extent to which the words coming out of the mouth are likely to be true

That's thin ice for discrimination if you start taking the view candidates should be disbelieved. What do you propose a hiring team do to assess this?
I applied for a demanding promotion when one of my children were young.
Given you seem to think it's reasonable to assume someone is lying when they repeatedly say they want a job, someone could easily have decided I was lying based on the assumption younger woman of childbearing age couldn't possibly want such a demanding role. Could be a nice bit of sex discrimination there, all under the guise of critical thinking obviously.

Obviously employers need to make sure they don;t fall foul of discrimination legislation!!?!

Are you suggesting that when a candidate says "yes, I know x y and z software inside out and backwards and will happily come into the office every single time I am asked to with no complaints" the hirer should assume that it is all 100% true?

Also, to be clear, if I were looking to promote someone and I knew your age and that you had a young child I would be fearful of promoting you to a demanding job.

If you said to me that you were 100% dedicated and that you would prioritize work above your children unless absolutely necessary then I would have my doubts. If I knew your partner was a stay at home dad then my doubts would be small but they would be there; if I knew he has a more demanding job than the one you were applying for, I would be very fearful.

There is not a chance in hell I would simply assume that a woman of childbearing age with a young child would be (able to be) as 100% dedicated as a childless man (or typical man with a child who doesn't do his fair share) might be.

Obviously, however, I would then have to consider my legitimate concerns in the light of the law of the land, which as far as I am concerned means "you have to assume the worst and only employ people if the business can afford to take on someone and then have them immediately faced with a very ill child and a new pregnancy."

The labour market is a market. It is dynamic; terms of employment (conditions and pay) change all the time, at the instigation of both parties, in response to wider economic conditions. Contracts provide structure for negotiation. If contracts are being breached, termination of contract is the obvious remedy. (Or you change the contract). Again, decision-making about this also reflects wide economic conditions. As mentioned previously, indentured labour is in the past.

the reality is that she is not offering enough to persuade obedient staff who love commuting to apply?

That’s based on the false assumption that people who prefer being office based are motivated purely by money and the people who prefer working from home can have their attendance bought.

Obviously employers need to make sure they don;t fall foul of discrimination legislation!!?!
They should, but given mind reading isn't an option and PP seems to think it's unreasonable for a hiring team to think a person applying for weekend work, interviews for weekend work, and accepts a job weekend working means they're accepting a weekend work pattern, I'm intrigued on how they'd establish who is truthful.

Are you suggesting that when a candidate says "yes, I know x y and z software inside out and backwards and will happily come into the office every single time I am asked to with no complaints" the hirer should assume that it is all 100% true?
If they were able to provide projects and evidence for their competency and their references checked out that they have a high level of competency in those areas, I'd probably be a little skeptical of inside out and backwards as interview chatter but I'd not assume it was bullshit.
I'm not sure why coming into the office every single time asked to would come up. Surely the position would have an on site attendance requirements and then it's a case of are they accepting the job or not. Mind reading isn't a skill yet.

Also, to be clear, if I were looking to promote someone and I knew your age and that you had a young child I would be fearful of promoting you to a demanding job.
Which is a problem given that you're then in a position of deciding to discriminate based on your opinion of someone's personal circumstances rather than their application for a job and demonstrated competency.

This is the problem if the default position is to assume people applying for a job don't actually want the job. It means employers start having to rely on their own (often discriminatory) biases rather than the application and interview in front of them.

I think a biggie here is many people moved from the south east during covid for better value, but expected to continue their existing job with the 'odd' trip in- problem is this isn't now suiting some companies and in interests of fairness are asking for 3 days in office 'across the board ' etc- said movers away had no idea how blooming expensive commuting at peak hours is once they get beyond 40 miles or so out of London or even some closer areas (st Albans for one is not far in terms of time but hugely expensive) and a 1 hour 40 trip each way to Bristol is a lot different to say 28 minutes to surbiton. - both money and time- the logical thing is to say look for a job in Bristol or even fully remote - but that's when many discover there is more competition and often lower salaries. It just depends how vital you are to a business, cost of replacing you, pay level, nature of role as to whether you have much clout to start changing conditions.

I have a disability that means I am not able to travel into an office at all, I would need to be 100% remote. But I would make this clear at interview. I wouldn’t expect what we’d agreed to change. So in that sense I think you’re being perfectly reasonable, especially with able bodied employees. However I would also urge you to offer full remote working for registered disabled people and not miss out on all we bring to the table.

OK, you are right, there are all sorts of reasons why people who are willing to commute are not applying for this job, and upping the salary on offer is only one way to encourage more applicants.

Can you educate me? If you were employing staff and needed them to come into the office, but you weren't getting applicants willing to come into the office, what would you do other than up the pay on offer?

This is the problem if the default position is to assume people applying for a job don't actually want the job. It means employers start having to rely on their own (often discriminatory) biases rather than the application and interview in front of them.

My mind is utterly blown by the concept that people apply for jobs other than for the reason that they need a job and the one they're applying for is less unappealing than others. [Caveat - I know I find it very easy to find things to do at home, so I don;t get why people would be bored not working, but I do know that many people are pretty unimaginative and seem to need a job not to go mad].

My mind is utterly blown by the concept that people apply for jobs other than for the reason that they need a job and the one they're applying for is less unappealing than others
[Caveat - I know I find it very easy to find things to do at home, so I don;t get why people would be bored not working, but I do know that many people are pretty unimaginative and seem to need a job not to go mad]
It's hardly a mind blowing concept that people look at job adverts, choose which jobs to apply for and then apply for them because they want the job they're applying for.
The reason they want it may be purely financial, or it it may be an area they're interested in, or they want progression in their field, or they want an easier workload at a certain stage in life, or want a certain shift pattern because it suits the family, but they're all reasons to want a job.

You’re assuming that none of the unsuccessful applicants were willing to come into the office. Maybe it’s a shit recruitment decision and the wrong people were appointed. There are people for whom no incentive is needed - I have a friend who’s working well past retirement age simply for the daily social contact. I have no reason to think she’s particularly unusual.

I think so much of this comes down to supply and demand. If you have a unique (or more likely, unusual, skillset) you may be able to set your own terms, to a degree at least, in a way that you can't if there are people desperate and qualified to do your job.

There was talk earlier of the creative industries. If you work in PR or comms for a company which covers music/cinema/theatre/exhibitions etc you are expected to attend gigs/premieres/previews and opening nights. This would almost certainly be in the job description and be reiterated at interview. Ts and Cs would most probably say something like 'regular evening and/or weekend work is a requirement of this role'. Anyone taking the job but refusing to attend said events would just be fired. Hundreds of people would love a job where they get to attend such events for free so companies don't need to adapt or pander to someone who doesn't want to.

I think a biggie here is many people moved from the south east during covid for better value, but expected to continue their existing job with the 'odd' trip in- problem is this isn't now suiting some companies and in interests of fairness are asking for 3 days in office 'across the board

I do think the 3 day a week thing is silly where most people commute by train because a full time season ticket costs the same as travelling 3 days a week so there's no point. Requiring 2 days a week in the office makes much more sense.

DH's employer says 3 days a week but it can be flexible, so eg you could go in all one week and only one day the next week.

If it's "purely financial" then they don't want the job, they want the money from the job, and accept that doing some work is the massive great negative that enables the monthly cash payments to happen.

I work with Graduates and Apprentices across a big variety of companies, and find the opposite to be the case

If it's "purely financial" then they don't want the job, they want the money from the job, and accept that doing some work is the massive great negative that enables the monthly cash payments to happen.
You're going to an awful lot of effort here and clutching at straws to excuse people applying for a job that's clearly advertised, lying in their application saying they want the job, lying at interview and then refusing to do the job they've chosen to accept.

Most people have a job for income. If someone applies for weekend working rather than Monday-Friday 9-5 that's their choice. If they don't want to work weekends they could apply to jobs that aren't weekend work patterns.

Are you coming back OP?