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 think I'd include rush hour traffic in the assumption of regular travel time. So in your example I'd see it as a 2.5/3 hour commute if the disruption was regular enough to need managing like that. If we're just thinking about disaster scenarios I wouldn't build it in though. It's a balance of risk. You can have a single short bus journey that gets stuck in gridlock because of a burst water main one day - you wouldn't then leave an hour for it every day in case that happened again.

If someone lives say 4 hours away from the office then I agree that as long as they agree to come in say 2 days a week it might work However we all know that unless it crystal clear that they are in the office at 0900 (not noon!) and we also know that this sort of agreement is prone to being messed up on both sides.

I have never known any contracts like this and I have worked for a very large FTSE company.

What if they need you say 4 days a week? My DS has a hybrid role that says he is expected to in between 1-30 days per month! He is highly paid but all of the employees (10,000) have the same contract.

Its never as clear cut as saying you can employ someone from say Scotland and then want them in 2 days in say Brighton.

If you’re willing to make it work, than you are not being unreasonable. I hired someone who lived in north Scotland for a two days per week in the office role in London, and he made it work and ultimately was the best person for the role.

It's nobody's first choice to commute 2-3 hours to work, recruiting is expensive, you are not going to spend the time and money hiring somebody who is not within a short distance of the workplace if you need them to come into the workplace. It's not controlling to choose a more conveniently located applicant. If it's short-term contracting/maternity cover then maybe, but if you want longevity then it's smarter to hire somebody who has less obstacles to carry out the job.

There's a big risk that they'll start off OK with long commutes, overnight accommodation, etc., but then find it's too much and try to wriggle out of commitments to be in the office. Also the risk of them citing disability discrimination or otherwise formally requesting flexibility so as not to have to go into the office as often, or at all. Or after a few months, decide the time/costs are too much and leave anyway.

Unless the applicant is exceptional, I don't see why a firm wouldn't employ a more local person to reduce the risks.

Recruitment is incredibly time consuming and expensive, so an employer has to look at the likelihood/probability of the applicants staying for the longer term, being flexible, etc.

If two people are equally competent to do the job, then it's entirely common sense that they're take the one living closest to the workplace, if workplace attendance (even infrequently) is required.

Back in the 80s and 90s when I was responsible for a lot of recruitment, I'd tend to favour the more local/nearby applicants, and that was long before the internet and home working. It was simply because they'd be more likely to get into work on bad weather days, if their car broke down, if the trains were on strike, etc. The closer they were, the more chance they'd be able to make it in, or at least not be too late if they were delayed. It's common sense. Of course, for "equivalent" applicants only - I'd never chose a local applicant over a more distant one if the one further away was better in terms of experience, qualifications, or a better "fit" for the job, but all other things being roughly equal, I'd go for the closest.

Nail on the head.

I'm in London, we are mandatory 2 days in the office each week, and I have colleagues commuting from Newcastle, York and Southampton. They stay in London overnight, it seems to work fine.

I'd say it will depend though on whether there are lots of suitable candidates, or whether they really want you above others.

My son has a job currently not near where he lives. But it is close to me so two nights a week he stays with me. I think he was asked at interview why he applied and he was able to tell them his plans . Maybe the fact that he is mid 20s helped too.

I totally agree with you. I've spoken to numerous candidates over the years that thought they'd be fine doing a huge commute but got pretty annoyed with it very quickly and moved on. Commuting is tiring on a good day then you throw in accidents, weather, etc which make long journeys frustrating. It's not easy.

If a long distance candidate can offer something significantly better than a local one, then it's worth the risk. Otherwise, any sensible employer will choose a local candidate.

Again 'conveniently located' and 'obstacles' and 'not a first choice' are all pre-judgements and based on biased assumptions of 1) a scenario, 2) a person's ability to handle that scenario and 3) previous direct or indirect experience of another individual's ability to handle the location of their work. None of which give an employer sound rights to dictate where applicants or employees live.

If this were the case then it would be above board to dismiss a long-term employee solely for moving house out of whatever 'assumed distance' the individual employer deemed 'acceptable'. Luckily that's not allowed, because performance and adherence to policy is the only relevant information.

Employers like this would also likely pull back on hiring women they assume will be having kids soon, women of nursery-aged children who they assume will get sick, people with a disability, people closer to retirement age than others. It's discrimination based on bias and nothing more.

I can't hire someone with a crazy commute as we have a min 3 days in the office - but around business needs so they aren't always fixed (for me as well) so everyone needs to be able to come in, at short notice if needed. I have 0 patience for people complaining about their commute (had a long string of people who moved out of the city in covid and then got surprised when they had to do this journey every day)

So I think I'd want to see if the hybrid is contractual or just a general agreement - at my place of work it's not contractual so could change at any point. I think I'd be much more open to taking a chance on someone who said 'my plan is xyz and I've practiced it and if it becomes an issue I'm open to relocating'

But depends on the sector and expectations and how flexible everyone is able to be - if the office days aren't in a row you'd need to do that commute twice in one week.

Blimey my commute is at least 90 mins on public transport and it's only 12 miles - and at least an hour is the norm for my colleagues (London). We have people coming from Cardiff/Northampton/Leeds - as it's 2 days a week - they have family they can stay with for the in between night.

I think if you know about the commute it's not for the company to decide if it's too much - surely it would form part of probation.

No, that's just unrealistic crazy talk. Of course an employer has the right to employ who they want using what criteria they want. They are also entitled to make judgement calls on the applicants suitability without having to hire them and test them out first.

If an employee moves house whilst already in the job is entirely different because at the point of having been employed you have certain rights and you have had the time to prove yourself. During the application process you don't have those rights and nobody can tell how you will handle, in this case, a long commute.

I don't know where you get this idea that everyone is entitled to jobs and that employers should just hire people blindly. Of course they have to weigh up the benefits and risks of hiring someone. Sometimes the benefits outweigh the risks and sometimes they don't.

I feel there's alot of people here making alot of judgements and assumptions and perhaps alot of employers missing the best people because of lack of flexibility and bias. Only 25 people in the whole of the UK can do my job. If I'm late because of childcare reasons or traffic I'll make the time up. I'm An adult, I can be responsible with my time and productivity. If you want to employ someone who is not as good or as qualified as me (and that's is the way it's going because it's healthcare and it's cheaper to do that) then you get worse service and that's not my problem. Might be the patients problem but that's not my call. The point being you pay less, you have lack of flexibility and micro manage and you get less experienced less skilled staff.

I didn't say they don't have the right to hire who they want – I simply said it's bias based on assumptions, which it is. And bias based on assumptions is poor hiring practice.

If an employee moves house whilst already in the job is entirely different because at the point of having been employed you have certain rights and you have had the time to prove yourself.

My point entirely – work is performance-judged, nothing more.

I don't know where you get this idea that everyone is entitled to jobs and that employers should just hire people blindly

I didn't say they are entitled to their jobs, but they are entitled to be judged on their strength of their experience and proven skills and abilities – and not on where they happen to live and whether or not another individual, unconnected to them, has or has not proven to be able to come into the office. What does 'hiring blindly' have to do with anything? You hire based on experience, skills and interview – none of that is blind. Hiring blind to bias on non-evidentiary assumptions is good practice.

My bf only applied for hybrid jobs elsewhere cause there were none locally. The biggest problem was employers definition of "hybrid". London is only an hour commute away but the trains are expensive and quite a few places had mandatory 4 days week in the office. One place had wfh 2days/month. Still hybrid according to them.

He lives in east Midlands and had a hybrid job in Devon. Then Glousesterhire but now is in Cambridgeshire. He drives/takes train to Premier Inn the night before office days. No problem at all. The travel to Devon was slightly inconvenient but worth the money. It was a maternity leave cover so the contract ended there, distance wasn't the issue.

I don't like it when employer makes decisions on behalf of the employee. But if they have a big pool of candidates..

I feel like in most cases (at least in my industry) they do clarify what they mean by hybrid, which on average is 2 days.

I've seen a few with 3, but that's the minority

I agree with all these comments about bias. If you were hiring in London (for example) and only wanted employees who lived there, you are being biased. Not only does this very short-sightedly limit the talent pool, it also the job is only open to people who can afford London living costs.

Really the best thing to come out of Covid is that it proved that there is a lot of flexibility that can be had in a lot of different jobs (not all of them!) and that includes people having more autonomy over their lives outside of work, such as where they live. Companies demanding people relocate or only hiring people who live close to the office is short-sighted and a step backwards, in my opinion.

Also in London, you can live in ‘London’ and still take an hour or more to get to work. Possibly why many people who have worked there and now live elsewhere are less phased by longer commutes. I’ve never expected to live near my job, although it’s been great on the occasions I have.

That's good. We kind of operated hybrid being 1-2/week, maybe 3. But we're surprised to find that employers love to tick the hybrid box if they can wfh at all. I just want them to write it in the job listing what they mean. Easier for everyone. Credit to one employer that send their hybrid policy pre interview to all out of towners.

Also think about "when" they want you in work. Can you decide what days to go in, or do they impose the days, and if so, are they the same days every week or different days.

At my son's workplace (one of UK's largest insurers), they're hybrid in that it's a minimum of average 3 days in the office every week, with the option for average 2 days working from home. But the contract allows them to specify when they want you in which can vary. Most of the time, they're entirely flexible, and it's up to the employee. But sometimes, there are "non negotiable" office days for meetings, presentations, training, etc. So it's impossible to always be in the office, say Tues/Wed/Thurs or Mon/Tues/Wed - it's often something like Monday, Wednesday, Friday. At busy "quarterly reporting" weeks, they have to be in the office all week for two weeks so they can collaborate together with the whole team in person to meet the tight deadlines. That is what made it impossible for our son to continue living at home and commuting - so he had to leave home and rent a flat in his work city.

An hours' commute in London is nothing like an hours' commute in other places. If you miss your train/tube, there's probably another pretty soon after. In other places, missing your train (or it being cancelled) could mean a wait of an hour or two before the next one. It's really not just "time" that matters, it's alternative options for when things go wrong.

But when your commuter or tube line is wrecked for the day, there's no alternative - you'll be stuck or seriously late. Or your bus is ploughing through awful traffic and the whole route is thrown off. You can't generalise so easily. When Southern Trains had so many issues a few years back, people suffered months on end of serious problems, causing job losses. And you're not in walking distance to work if snow or ice stops everything. It's not just about missing a train.

There are so many variables, as this thread shows. Flexibility on modes of transport/days in office/hours to work/notice period. The people applying to work in a hybrid role with a long commute need to think about these seriously of course, and only apply for roles they can afford to do, both in travel costs and life disruption.

It's difficult to say without knowing more about the sector and what recruitment looks like. I can believe an employer who's previously had a hybrid hire wanting more wfh might be more wary and prefer someone living closer if all else is equal. So you could lose out there.

Equally, that doesn't mean such a person will also apply for the role. There've been threads on here before from people who kept having the same problem and whose companies clearly hadn't realised they were not in a position to get office time on the package they were offering.

It's also possible they won't even pick up on it.

You are right to apply but will need to explain how you’ll make it work. Definitely not a blocker but they need to be convinced you will make it work:

What if there is an important event on one of your WFH days, are you able to switch days?

What if you have a week long in-person training, can you be there the whole week as a one-off?

What is your contingency plan if trains are not running one day? For ex can you easily swap to
go to the office the next day?

I hired someone living in Wales for a hybrid London job, 2 office days a week. But I knew him and knew he was reliable and would be flexible.