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

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?

Because it's blindingly 'obvious' (to everyone except @Didimum) that someone who lives around the corner will find it easier to get to the office than someone who lives at the other end of the country.

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?

You are really reaching here if you don’t think a two hour commute is objectively more difficult than a half hour commute and it’s nothing but bias to say so.

As I noted above, once you get to the shortlist, there’s very rarely a “best candidate EVAH” so other factors come into play.

DBro is interviewing candidates at present, he does have a clear front runner, so that person living 100 miles from the office may well be outweighed by how good they are vs others.

Yes, fair enough. But I don't think a blanket ban on anyone who lives more than an hour away is the answer either. As a few people have said that's pretty standard minimum commute in London at least ...

A longer commute into an office doesn't mean someone can't perform their job effectively and successfully, or more effectively and successfully than someone who lives closer. If you're presuming they can't based on no evidence, non specific to the individual applicant, that's bias and unfair to the applicant.

Again, reasons why it's 'obvious', which aren't rooted in pre-judgements and assumptions, are necessary for this argument.

I didn't say it isn't more difficult – I said it's not indicative that an applicant can't perform their job effectively and successfully. Having children is more difficult to a commuter, having an old car is more difficult to a commuter, not having a wage high enough to comfortable cover travel costs is difficult to a commuter, having a dog is difficult to a commuter – the list goes on.

Not because it's actually true. Why should they find it 'difficult'?

and

I didn't say it isn't more difficult

err, ok, @Didimum....

And if someone has had 14 jobs in two years, they might just have been unlucky. However any sensible recruiter is going to work on a balance of probability. there's a much higger probability that someone living a long way off is going to try and come into the office less, so they factor that in. Only an idiot wouldn't. If they are struggling to fill the position from someone local, they might ignore it. If they only seem just as good as someone round the corner, why hire them?

My own personal preference would be that it galls me the number of situations we have where one person is living in Bristol and another living in Birmingham, both driving back and forth every day to similar jobs in one another's cities when they could both be doing the local one. It's such a massive waste of resources. Am I allowed to take that into consideration in your little dreamworld?

Depends how many good candidates there are living five minutes away.

Bringing it back to the OP, it would help a candidate's case if they had a clear and credible plan for the hybrid e.g. staying overnight with a friend every Tuesday, and even more if the candidate had established the set up in a past job or circumstance.

I worked with a guy once whose family was in Cornwall but he had both a friend in North London where he could stay on weeknights as needed and. at a pinch, had a club (ex military) where he could get a room too. To all intents and purposes, he was London based whenever that was needed.

Okay, you’ve gone too far now ( metaphorically,). Name one or two of these ‘well known commuter towns to London’ which are 30 miles from their nearest mainline station. The clue is in the name ‘commuter town’.

You should full well know that 'objective' difficulties of whatever kind don't necessarily impact people enough to not perform a role as well or better than someone who doesn't have said 'difficulty'. If you don't know that, then I can't help you.

And you should know that two hours is longer than half an hour, and if you don't, I can't help you.

I think I'm at the playing chess with a pigeon stage, so I'll leave it there. You have a great evening, now.

I've never needed a hybrid job in 14 years of my professional life. Yes I know it's odd that I've always worked remotely, but that's always been the case.

So I have a plan, but never have had to execute it.

Reading to Paddington – 30 miles
Tunbridge Wells to Victoria – 31 miles
Chelmsford to Liverpool Street – 28 miles
Southend to Liverpool Street – 34 miles
Guildford to Waterloo – 29 miles
Hitchin to Kings Cross – 30 miles

And I don't think you understand that different people find different things easier than others.

For a highly specialised, difficult to fill role I might risk it, indeed did for a cyber security post and it worked fine until he left after a year. For ordinary office jobs where there is a good choice of candidates I’d be unlikely to pick somebody travelling 90 minutes to work over a similar person doing 30 minutes. You might not think it fair, or it’s controlling or whatever but that’s how it is. We rarely have fewer than thirty applicants for 95% of our vacancies.

No experience of this but I would imagine as long as you are committed to the travelling and have a plan, they should only be concerned with how suitable you are for the job. Is it really feasible though? If it’s outwith commuting distance are you really prepared for potentially having to pay for two or more nights a week away from home? What if you are to be in the office two non consecutive days? What if you couldn’t book accommodation eg if there was an event in that area that made accommodation busy or overpriced. What about the future- partner, kids, sick elderly parents etc….These are the questions that I would ask myself. But if all of these can be satisfactorily addressed then go for it.

Having hired hybrid workers who live too far from the office yabu.

Its a fucking nightmare. Ive got two guys with 2 hour commutes and they basically avoid doing their 3 days in at all cost. Theyve got every bloody excuse under the sun why they are well enough to wfh (and not develop a record of sickness absence) but not well enough to do the commute they committed to and said wasn't an issue when we hired them.

Ah okay, you don't understand what a mainline station is. As well as many other things. Pigeon chess it is. Fare thee well!

I think one issue is that most employers view of "hybrid" is that it means office based with flexibility to do some days wfh.

Imho most employees who go for hybrid really want a largely remote role with a requirement to go to the office sometimes.

It's really not the same.

Also - 3 days in means

3 days minimum

Not "hardly ever actually 3 days, more often 2 days, 1 day or no days per week in".

There’s a lot of bias in recruitment. As long as it’s not related to a protected characteristic it’s normal, logical, and I would argue is GOOD practice. I’m biased towards people with good qualifications, away from people with poor personal hygiene, towards people able to present themselves succinctly and clearly, and 100 other biases. They may not be directly relevant to the ability to do that specific job, but are highly correlated to the likelihood of being competent and fitting well with the team. And being a long way away is highly correlated with not being easily able to come into the office. And sometimes I need people in the office, and at crunch times I really need them there, in person, and for long hours. Having to factor in an additional 2 hour commute is a real negative, and avoiding it is a perfectly logical bias to have.

All job interviews are 'discriminatory' and based on 'assumptions' to some degree.

Let's say there's 50 people interviewing for a job. If they've been called to interview, clearly they have the basic skills, experience and education required. Probably many of them could do the job perfectly well, but only 1 will get the offer. That being the case, obviously the employer is going to take several things into account. If the employer believes that a long distance from work is one of those things, that's up to them. It's not 'discriminatory' any more than any of the ways in which 49 out of 50 candidates are turned down is 'discriminatory'.

If you’re basing hiring decisions on discriminatory decisions then you’re doing it wrong.

Of course it’s up to them, doesn’t mean it’s not biased and incorrect.

I’m biased towards people with good qualifications, away from people with poor personal hygiene, towards people able to present themselves succinctly and clearly

All these things are evidence based to the individual. Assuming the location of their home will make them a poor employee is not.