Employers hell bent on working in the office full time

[NewDayNewLife25]

Anyone else currently job searching and noticed the same thing?

I'm utterly miserable in my current role which is unfortunate as I've been there for 4 years and use to love it, but a new manager has changed things. I've always worked from home.

Anyway, I've been applying for jobs, mainly remote/hybrid working but also a few office based roles. I always state in my cover letter what I'm looking for, and my address is on my CV too.

A few employers have contacted me, saying that I'm perfect for the role, have all the experience/skills that's required and that they think I would make a great addition to the team. But as soon as I've asked about the working set up, that's it, done. They won't entertain it and decline my application.

I just think it's a shame. I know that they probably have plenty of applications, but surely it's more important to hire the right person, with the right skills and experience. Not just because that person happens to live near the office. Half the time they can't even explain why they need the person in the office. Is it control?

I'm fed up already!

Personally, I don’t care where a team member is located. I should trust them to deliver, and my job is to make sure they do.

However it is not normally the recruiting manager who decides on WFH arrangements, instead it’s a policy dictated down from the top.

So whilst you might have the right skill set/experience for the job, if you aren’t going to be in the office 60% of the time and I’m going to be assessed (and my bonus adjusted) based on your attendance, then yes, finding the person who meets most of my requirements but can attend the office is the priority.

Unless you have an incredibly niche skillset, the employer generally dictates the terms.

It really doesn't matter whether or not you understand their motivations for having staff in the office. You are not the one running the business.

@mummyh2016 stop making things up to fit your own narrative. There are many employers who are nothing but controlling. It has nothing to do with mental well-being, productivity etc

I got a fair few approaches last time I was job hunting.

I work in a slightly niche role where apparently there's a shortage of qualified and experienced candidates. Anyone worth their salt is working for 50k upwards, but plenty look to pay 35kish.

The best I can guess is that since these were HR people doing the invite, they were desperate to justify their lowball salary offers by showing that X number of people applied.

@cheezmonster and they will continue to struggle to find the right staff and probably have a very high staff turn over, like most companies.

What am I making up? Why are you so defensive about this email you think was tailored to you?
I've never worked in an office where I've been told I can't talk. Just because you have doesn't mean every office isn't going to allow talking!

Not necessarily

There is always a lot of talk on these threads about how the talent will vote with their feet
I am sure that is true for some jobs but I am looking for people who are competent,nice and in the office
We pay a bit over the going rate ,good holidays and a degree of flexibility
Fab staff retention and no issues recruiting 🤷‍♀️

That's not your concern though. That's their concern.

@cheezmonster I can discuss it though can't I?

I am sure there are some employers who are hell bent on making every employee miserable simply because they can. My employer, on the other hand is interested in staff wellbeing which is why there are people in my team who worked there for 30+ years and are still going strong beyond retirement age.
There is a shortage of skilled labour in my industry so I am in a strong position to move employers if someone was to offer better terms. That's the nature of the job market. An employer is free to propose the terms but I don't have to accept them.

@Munnygirl absolutely, its very common

Statistics from November last year showed on average in the UK there were almost 49 applications per job vacancy. I doubt companies are sweating much over these imaginery geniuses demanding to wfh. I'm sure there's an abundance of more social prospective employees that can adequately fill these office based positions.

But there will always be someone else who will accept their terms.

@NewDayNewLife25 At the end of the day you asked for something that wasn't on the job description, you were told no, and you're annoyed about it.

That is not reasonable, it was never offered in the first place, and it's really nothing to do with you as to why a company you have never worked for decides that it is best for their business if employees work on site.

You just sound like you're throwing your toys out of the pram. If the company have problems then why is it any concern of yours? It's not - you're just having quite a childish reaction to you not getting what you wanted.

The solution is to simply apply for a jobs that are actually offering what you want. There are plenty of remote/ hybrid roles being advertised - if that's what you want then go for those in the first place.

I disagree. People move jobs for all sorts of reason. Just because you want to wfh does not mean the company has to offer it.

What data do you have to prove that ? I was in the office the other day, listened to two guys talk for 30 mins with coffee mugs in their hand about the rugby match that was on in great detail, - that's not working and what difference is it to someone who takes 20 mins to do the school run. How about the person dilly dallying on their phone while swinging from their office chair or the person who sits in the canteen alot. There are people who don't work in the office, they don't work at home either, There are people who go above and beyond in office as well as home. If not working then that's down to poor management. Where i live two people need to be earning a combined salary of 127k to buy a house near where i work, that two people earning over 60k each. Rent for a 3 bed house i saw recently was 3k. People have no choice but to live further away. Then add in childcare costs etc, public transport is non existent. Covid woke people up that they don't have to be on the hamster wheel of getting up at crack of dawn rushing out the door, sitting in traffic for 2 hours just to sit at a desk with headset on most of time, cause i don't know any office that ever has enough meeting rooms nor private booths you can have a conversation, watching the clock then to ensure you clock out a reasonable time to get home and try and miss traffic get home when its dark, rush a dinner and then flop into bed to only do it all over again the next day. We live in a world with so many different types of communication methods and technology, if it can be done at home why change

@cheezmonster where have I said I'm annoyed about it? I'm not bothered in the slightest, there are many more opportunities available. I'm just curious as to why employers prioritise office attendance over finding the right person for the role. No wonder they can't keep staff and are constantly backfilling the same jobs. Also, stop making things up. It's annoying.

@Munnygirl where did I say they have to offer it? Please show me.

Yes, and? It doesn't have to be me. What happens after I leave isn't really my concern. The fact of the matter is my employer is happy with the arrangement we have and recognises that it not only beneficial to us but also our clients. We have much wider reach when working remotely which completely transformed the client base that we are attracting. Not to mention that we now have highly skilled specialist from all over the country working in our team who would be impossible to recruit if they couldn't work remotely. And we wouldn't have recruited them if there was a rich local pool of candidates to pick from.

@Wexone 👏

While I would love to see more remote positions and mourn the trend to return to the office your view is very flawed. Whoever they end up offering the job to will probably do a good job as well. No employer would know or care whether they dismissed a better candidate as long as the person getting the job is still doing a good job. My company recently tried to fill a couple of positions and really struggled because most of the great candidates wanted more WFH but all that meant was that it took a bit longer to fill the vacancies. It is a shame. I hope you find the right job for you. (I actually don't mind being in the office but would prefer a fully remote job.)

I can’t get anything done in my office

Yes, I have noticed this OP, and it's very frustrating. Even jobs that state they are flexible/home working/hybrid, insist something ridiculous like you have to be in the office 4 days a week, or you have to be in the office at least 3 days a week and those days are set. So, for example, there are two days a week I could never work in an office. Yet those 2 days are frequently specified as non negotiable office attendance days.

The sorts of employers who prioritise office attendance are old fashioned but, unfortuantely, they're still running the show. You may have better luck seeking out roles in tech startups or global SMEs that offer remote roles (like marketing manager, designer, business relationship manager etc).

The problem is, you & your skill set is not as unique as you would like it to be.
You might make it to 1st choice for whatever reasons and get offered the job with certain conditions like working from the office... but if you refuse there is an equally qualified person in the 2nd ... 3rd or even 4th spot.
If you interview people, you might know, that sometimes things are decided with the toss of a coin or based on some silly criteria. This has nothing to do with the job, it's done simply because there is little difference between candidates 1, 2, & 3.