AIBU to apply for hybrid roles even though I'm nowhere near the workplace?

[Isitameproblem]

Hello ladies!

Some of you might or might not remember that I was made redundant after 8 months. In the end it was mutual but that's by the by.

I live in deep west country and have always had remote jobs for the past 14 years this November. Unfortunately, it seems like most of the jobs in my field these days ( client relationship management) are hybrid. I have never really applied for hybrid roles apart from 2 times and both told me I simply lived too far away and I needed to relocate. (Bristol and Plymouth so not the other side of the country!)

I'm happy to pay my own travel/lodging expenses, but had anybody been successful to get an offer with my current situation? (Living too far away to commute but committing to travel)
TIA

I’ve interviewed people for roles who live way beyond commuting distance but it is made very clear as part of the recruitment process that we have a mandatory two days in the office policy. I don’t really care how they manage it.

I find it off-putting when companies mandate that applicants or employees live within a certain distance. It's controlling. Where an employee lives or how they travel is absolutely no business of an employer as long as they do their job well and are at whatever location they need to be at when needed.

@Didimum i disagree actually - you don’t want to hire someone then discover they’re not actually going to be able to manage the commute because it’s 4 hours a day or similar.

Or - as OP may do, start trying to negotiate less days in the office.

Recruitment is a lot of work - you want to get the right person first time round!

I'm currently interviewing for roles that would require a commute for office days and no one has commented. DH is in a similar position and has been asked about it at interview but as he currently does the same thing successfully he's just said he will continue.

If it's a really long commute, I think I'd want to be clear that you'd plan to stay overnight and that you've budgeted for this. You can in my experience (I once did this internationally) make a virtue of the fact that you can do a really good long day or two in this way, without home distractions.

That's an issue with the employee's willingness to meet company requirements, though, not a location issue. If the employee/applicant is comes in when required then that's all that matters – where you choose to live in none of their business.

If you discover a new hire isn't willing to come in, then get rid – regardless of where they do or don't live.

I was “at risk” in my work (secured a job so no longer the case) and I was looking at jobs in London with 2 days in the office. I’m in the West Country but felt one night in London a week was fine. My df used to work away all week for some contracts.

That said, we’ve also employed someone who was fine with the commute - an hour and a half -was always late, left early and moaned about the drive constantly trying to provide excuses to wfh each week. You need to provide confidence you’ll commit.

I agree with you. Yes a lot of people do the long commute but its risky for the employer.

An ex-colleague of mine hired someone for her team who lived quite far away, she made it clear during the interview she was required to be in the office 3 days a week of which she said she was happy with that. On her first day she complained that her commute was too far and needed to WFH more. She didn't last in the company.

It kind of is a business of an employer.
our company once employed someone in the office who had an hours commute.
He lasted 2 weeks 🤷🏻‍♀️
And as much as I understand not everyone is like that, why would you want to risk it?

An hour isn't that long for a lot of us. It's always up to the staff member to manage their own time and if they can't it becomes a performance issue.

I'm happy to! When I was in my 20s my commute was like 90mins each way and did it for years! But alas that hiring manager said the 75min commute was too much and would not offer me the job.

My limit would be 2 days in the office, I think 3 would definitely need relocation (which I'm open to, but that's a last resort).

I think the key is to show that you have a plan and are genuinely committed to the commute.

As others have indicated - you are more of a risk, because employers are aware that plenty of people say anything to get a foot in the door and then either rock up late or try to WFH more than company policy.

Obviously you can't prove that you will do what you say - but the more specific you can be (e.g. will stay in specific hotel, you've checked the drive/train) the more likely they are to believe you.

That's an issue with his work ethic and compliance – not his location. You can have a bad hire for a hundred different reasons. It's really not an employer's business and it comes off as controlling – they should not be making predisposed judgements of people.

If you are going to manage the office days in your own time and at your own expense and will never say you can't come into the office because of the distance then it should be up to you. However, if you were doing a 2h commute for a 9am start you would actually need to allow 3 hours for the journey because you can never predict which days there's going to be massive disruption due to an accident (this will happen at least twice a month), so you'll actually need to leave home at 6am. And your potential employer has every right to decide they don't want an employee who arrives tired and cranky cos they got up at 5am and have been stuck on a motorway for 3 hrs so will probably need a couple of hours recovery time before they can start being productive.

Because of where I live, I always need to take the night train, so those scenarios don't apply.

I think that if they have two applicants that have similiar compentence they would always choose the one who has an easier commute, especially if the other person lives hours away. It is simply riskier to employ someone who is going to have to go through great expense to get to and from work. Also, they might decide that everyone should be in the office 3 or 4 days a week, then the person who lives 2-3 hours away is going to leave and they will have to pay again to recruit someone new. It's just one of the many factors that makes a difference when you are recruiting. Nobody is entitled to a job after all.

Should the employer be projecting their own presumptions on an employee like that? Some people are full of energy at 5am and would be quite happy to do that, and hit bedtime at 9pm. It might not be how you would live yourself, but let someone show you whether it suits them maybe?

Well if he had lived 30 minutes away he probably wouldn't have found the commute too much and he would have stayed longer. It's not controlling to want staff that can reliably come in to work and the the recruitment process does require you to make judgement about who would work out the best for the company, on multple levels. It's not a lottery.

What did I just read? What a joke. No one with a commute leave 50% earlier because they might encounter travel disruption. They arrive when they arrive just like everyone else who might also have experienced travel disruption, regardless of where they live. If disruption is bad enough to render the journey impossible, they will turn back and wfh or take an annual leave day – just like everyone else who commutes regardless of location.

What a weird set of (incorrect) assumptions.

On the flipside, I'm no longer willing to hire people who live much more than an hour - 1.5hrs from the office but claim they are definitely fine to do the 2 days a week in the office that we mandate.
My experience is that they just hope once they are in they can dodge at least one of the office days and come in perhaps 1 day per fortnight. Its happened too often now. Often they do the 2 days a week for a few weeks, then it seems to be that one of the days is frequently dropped for some reason or another, a childcare emergency, cancelled trains, have to stay home to take a delivery....

We want two days a week in the office at a minimum and it's better we hire someone from the start for whom it's not going to be a ridiculous travel burden of 3 hours a day to attend the office.

I work with someone who commutes from Birmingham to London 2-3 days a week. Not now I'd want to live but plenty of people do this and manage.

It's not controlling to want staff who can reliably come in – it is controlling to make demands on where they live. The employer assuming that someone won't want to make the journey is the problematic part. If you're making pre-judgements based on assumptions and no evidence then that's very poor recruiting.

Again – that's an issue with the person, not the location. If you're basing judgements on previous people, that's bias.

Sorry I disagree. If it's a route that regularly experiences travel disruption and congestion during rush hour I'd expect the employee to be allowing extra time. I'm not talking about one off situations like a huge pile up on the motorway, but there are loads of routes that would take much longer during rush hour 4 days out of 5 and the employee absolutely should be assuming they allow more time.

The job I'm hoping to get is a 90 minute/two hour drive for me, 2/3 days a week. It's a job I really want and that commute is totally doable for me (so many podcasts to get through) and I'm realistic about what it will be like based on my experience of doing long commutes before. I also know that the employer
is very committed to flexible working and won't decide I need to be there 4/5 days a week at any point.

I have though just pulled out of an interview for a role that was 2.5/3 hours drive as I wasn't that fussed about it and I suspected that the employer wasn't wholly sincere about the office attendance requirement. That was about the whole package, not just the length of the commute, which I would have done if the other things were right.

A driving commute is completely different – that's factored in to every time you make the journey. OP is taking traveling by train. Train commuters do not factor 50% longer into their travel time.