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

If you're claiming that people don't have problematic employees who live at any distance from their place of work, the YABU. If you're also claiming to have evidence that those noted employees weren't problematic in any position, regardless of distance, then you are also BU. Poor employees are poor employees.

I wouldn’t hire someone further away than 2 hours door to door, even if they claimed to be willing to commute. It just doesn’t work in practice. In addition to the risk of moaning and dropping days there’s no flexibility to come in when required, do a breakfast meeting in the office, socials in the evening ect ect. If it’s hybrid you need to be able to attend the office when necessary not on the basis of fixed dates you can book accommodation for.

I've heard similar stories, although it's been pass probation then made it clear they didn't expect to come in.

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.

and

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.

This is what you have said. You say an employer has no right to make a hiring decision based upon the applicants living location and you say that it's is discrimination equivalent to not hiring a disabled person etc. when it's just an employer looking at what would work best for their company and it's nothing illegal or particularly unusual.

I'm commenting on the situation described. If you want to take everything into an abstract platonic cave of how the world should be vs how the world is, go for it, but YABU.

Son has a hybrid civil service job, 2 days per week on site, and his commute is over 2 hours each way - but he stays overnight at his dad's. They didn't ask about this at his interview, so I'd say you were unlucky to be denied a job on that basis.

I don't say that don't have legal rights or that it's illegal. I very clearly say they don't have 'sound rights' and that it's poor hiring practice.

It's not abstract. It's common place and it's poor practice based on bias.

Unfortunately, I've been unlucky twice. And maybe Public is very different to Private.

I'm private sector, OP, and so are many of the people I know who are commuting two hours plus. Don't lose faith.

Under anonymous recruitment I wouldn’t know where you’d be travelling from until it got to job offer stage, so I wouldn’t be able to compare it to another candidate even if I wanted to.

I have recruited people though who state they will do all kinds of things commute-wise before starting the job and then become increasingly difficult about it once in role. We’re at least 2 days in the office a week, and they’ll do it for the first month, then start coming up with reasons to WFH an additional day. Then another one!

Showing that you’ve thought through the practicalities and the cost would help. I do know other people who do this very successfully.

A lot of these people with substantial commutes actually have quite 'normal' jobs, ie they're not high fliers or big earners.

Lots of people I work with do this without issue. Not quite the same but I live in Norfolk and regularly commute in 1/2 days a week (1.75 hrs). Works fine. With tethering I can do emails on the way in, so leave a bit early. Just important to make sure that you account for the travel costs when considering the role. Stay down some nights when I can. That being said it is now very expensive to do so compared to 4/5 years ago. In the summer I stop at the LSE student accommodation. Need to book early, but that is cheap and they do brekkie.

Oh please stop with the "controlling". Where you choose to live is absolutely their business if they are talking about hiring you to do a job.

They'd rather not hire someone in the first place who they feel it's likely they will have to "get rid" of in a couple of months, which simply wastes everybody's time. if they have another candidate who they don't have to worry about firing later on, they are going to take that one. That's just sensible practice on their part.

Highly niche 🤣 it’s not niche mate. The main employer in several UK towns actually is just one example I can think of.

Also to note that on the reliability of commuting, it has often been really difficult for people living in popular commuter belt areas. South Western Trains for example were terrible and we regularly had people turning up 3/4 an hour late. I did hear of companies not recruiting people who commuted by this method but never saw this confirmed. My commute is quite reliable really. I love a do, so happy to stay after work and I can get there early if I need to, but we do do this very often TBH.

We have only had one instance of someone who we recruited who then said now I realise how long it really takes I need to work fully from home. We refused and they left. We had been perfectly clear on requirements at the interview stage. There was little sympathy around the office and a sense that such behaviour could "spoil it for everyone else".

I’m glad it works for you.
It clearly didn’t work for him.

You hire based on experience, skills and interview – none of that is blind. Hiring blind to bias on non-evidentiary assumptions is good practice.

In practice, by the time I am at the final interview stage, any of the candidates could do the job. So other factors will come in e.g. our best estimate of how long we think each candidate might stay if offered the job, because hiring absorbs a big chunk of time in our small team.

I previously worked in London where people commuted in from all over. Some did 4 days in the office and 1 from home and some did 5 days in the office. The furthest commute was from Spain! People were coming from Belfast, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Leicester, all over. Some of those had a long commute every day and others had somewhere else to stay during the week, but all at their own expense. So I don't think it's unreasonable to apply, but I guess it's up to the company if they want to interview/employ you. Good luck!

Give a reason why an employee's home location is an employer's business, that isn't related to perceived or assumed work ethic, timekeeping or ability to meet company policy?

who they feel it's likely they will have to "get rid" of in a couple of months

And for what reason is it 'likely' that also isn't related to perceived or assumed work ethic, timekeeping or ability to meet company policy?

'Sensible practice' in this case = bias. 'I personally don't think you can perform in this job because X=person from X-location with X-commute couldn't or because I personally couldn't' – utterly unrelated to the individual applicant.

I can't give a reason that isn't related to perceived or assumed work ethic, timekeeping or ability to meet company policy becuase the obvious reason - they will find it more difficult to get there - is related to those things.

It's a risk, they are entitled to calculate what that risk is based on previous experience and not take it.

My team is required to be available - at short notice - to come into work on any day they are employed. I would never ask anyone to work extra hours or on a non working day if they are part-time, but any other day is fair game. Therefore their location directly impacts their ability to do their job. There's no way to test their ability to manage this as an experiment this as once someone is hired they have the job and I can't get rid of them. All else being equal I would of course consider the logistics of where they live and how it might work if I need to call someone in unexpectedly (which would be impossible in this scenario as this person needs to travel overnight and book a hotel)

I know lots of people who go for jobs far away. They get it and go in for the manitory 2 days a week, then give excuses as to why they can't do it any more. I think that's why employers are now refusing those who live further away.

the obvious reason - they will find it more difficult to get there - is related to those things.

And the 'obvious reason' is what is so commonly rooted in bias – because it's what you assume. Not because it's actually true. Why should they find it 'difficult'? Because you would? Because you think they should?

they are entitled to calculate what that risk is based on previous experience and not take it.

They are entitled. I didn't say they weren't. Doesn't mean it's not poor hiring practice though. The risk is not calculated fairly because one person's approach to a long commute has no influence or gauge on another's.