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

DH has applied for a couple of fairly senior roles where he's asked whether hybrid working is available during the initial fact finding call, and been told that very few people in his field will now apply for a role requiring100% in an office so the firm is having to offer flexible working. It's very dependent on a lot of factors.

YANBU to apply.

I'm guessing that perhaps some managers have had negative experiences with employees who apply for a hybrid role a long distance away and then keep finding more and more excuses not to come in. But that's obviously not your fault.

It's only discrimination if it's around a protected characteristic. Location you live isnt a protected characteristic

I'm not talking about formal workplace discrimination, I'm talking about good old fashioned discrimination about any assumptions someone has that affect how well you think they can perform a job. I didn't say an applicant has rights against this discrimination – they don't – but it's still poor practice to discriminate against people in this way.

Yes, none of that is an issue. In a previous role I had to travel (sometimes internationally) at the drop of the hat. Sometimes that would take whole weeks.
Obviously the difference is that they paid my expenses, so it would also be part of the equation if it becomes unsustainable from a monetary POV.

The issue I have is that you say that employers have no right to hire (or not hire) someone based on the distance to work, there are no laws agaist that. You also say it's discrimination to not hire someone who lives several hours away and you liken it with not hiring women of childbearing age or disabled people. You seem to think that employers are doing something illegal by taking distance to work into consideration when hiring staff. They aren't.

If I were in HR I'd be wary of people with long commutes as so many have/are trying to negotiate more wfh once they're in the door.

But as PP have said, you can do a lot to convince them that you're serious. Being very clear on the detail of how it will work will help.

This. As someone who used to interview and hire regularly, it comes to the "equal candidates but one has xxx" issue. A stellar candidate will always have an advantage but mostly in my experience they are few and far and get headhunted rather than going through the standard sieve process.....

No where did I say they have no rights (in fact, I say they do gave the right). Absolutely no where do I say there is a law against it or that it's illegal.

What I have said is that it's bias and it's poor hiring practice – which it is.

It's also not illegal to not hire an applicant because she's 27, newly married and wants children. But is it good practice, all skills and experience being present, to not hire her based on the assumption that she's going to have children shortly and vis-à-vis be a poor employee? Is it good practice to also not hire a woman because she has one and two year old children at home and relies on nursery? Is it good practice to not hire a man who has undergone cancer treatment in the last 6 months? Are any of these illegal? No. Are all of them based on pre-judged bias and not the individual? Yes.

you can call discrimination as much as you like but when an employer has several strong candidates and only one post, they will take all other factors into account and only have to tell the others "sorry you weren't the strongest candidate/best fit this time"

I didn't say they couldn't. I have only said it's poor hiring practice to make judgements based on biased based on assumptions.

and I repeat my comment above....many good candidates and only one post....

It is actually illegal not to hire on the basis of caring responsibilities or cancer.

it may be the experience of that company......

They'd have to prove it though – which would be exceptionally difficult.

I don't see how it's discriminatory to prioritise flexibility in my staffing. I need people who can come in on any day they are paid to work - and those days aren't entirely in their control and could change week to week. That's part of the job description and part of my expectation. So I would need a very compelling reason to hire someone who has an additional barrier to the role such as living hours away.

But... I don't hire very high level roles and it's not a headhunting situation. I would guess anything like this would be part of any sort of negotiation for very niche skilled people, upper level management etc. But would never be part of mine.

And that experience would be based on other non-connected individuals. So again – it's bias.

In that case, you are clearly able to be reasonably flexible and honestly I think most employers won’t care where you live.

Yes it would. But factually it is illegal.

You assume travel is a barrier to flexibility. That's your assumption and nothing to do with the applicant's ability to handle it. Almost all office based jobs will have a routine and employees will base their own routine around that – being in at 9-5pm, weekly meetings on Tuesday, lunch hour between 1-2pm, etc. Employees will build routines of their own around these determiners – childcare, train travel, dentist appointments, dog walkers etc. Let's not pretend that any of the above suddenly changing wouldn't pose a problem to any employee, regardless of where they live.

That's part of the job description

If it's the part of the job description to be available to come in on any given day or hour with 24hrs notice, then make that a known policy. It's the applicant's job to handle that and handle it well, not your job to assume they can't simply because you think they can't.

And it's not relevant to whether it's poor practice to make assumptions on if an applicant can perform well at a job based on where they happen to live.

I do get your point. But for a better candidate wouldn't you accept the commute is their issue?

Example: My first ever employer only employed people from a ten mile radius. At interview I said I was 20 miles away, they were very doubtful about me. I got the job and ended up being one of their star employees with all sorts of awards etc.

All other things being equal then yes get someone local, but for a better candidate I'd be happy that they manage their commute.

I don't know! Many do ask if I live within commuting distance, some ask if I'm willing to relocate.

The only two that got to offer stage, it became a red line.

The 'pre-judgements' and 'assumptions' you talk about are just common sense to most people, probably straying into no-brainer territory. Sure there will cases where applicants living 3+ hours away have exceptional qualities that put them ahead of more local candidates, but otherwise it's not unrealistic to believe the commute could become an issue. It's easy to say if it becomes a performance issue then get rid of them, but that ignores PP's very good point that recruiting is a costly and time-consuming process (as is getting rid of someone!) and it's better to get it right first time.

I live 3 hours from my work and make the two days in office a week, at least. I'm flexible and see it as my problem, not theirs, that I am not local. It was/is our intention to move closer, but after nearly a year, and dh's job going complicated, I can't see this happening for at least another 18 months. It's expensive basically, there are not the cheap hotels I thought there would be (I average about £45 a night) and the travel is 40-50 quid return. But it was still worth it for the promotion and restart of annual rises (I was top of lower grade) and the challenge and lovely workplace. So, you could do as I did and say you intend to move, but will commute until then. I meant it, and still hope to.