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

Pmsl

I put 'discriminatory' in quotes because obviously I don't mean 'discriminatory' in the legal sense.

But when you have several qualified candidates but can only choose one, then obviously you will base your decision on factors other than their ability to do the job. If the employer believes that taking on a candidate who lives a long distance from work is risky, then it makes sense for them to prefer another equally qualified candidate.

How else do you suggest employers choose between many candidates, all of whom could do the job?

My husband has recently got a really good hybrid job he loves(he’d had enough of working from home). We live in deepest Devon and he commutes to Bristol 2 days a week. The whole office does similar.

I'm still 3 hours away from Bristol :(

If it feels risky due to the things they have indicated when questioned about it then that’s fair practice. If not then that’s unfair on the applicant.

If a hiring manager in is the lucky position to have several excellent otherwise equal candidates, then they’d do themselves a favour to not be so lazy as to use home location as a deciding factor. They can dig deeper and find more authentic and legitimate reasons.

It's not unfair. The employer is the one offering the job and they get to decide what they consider to be "authentic and legitimate reasons" when making a choice. They're not obliged to 'dig deeper'.

We're hybrid, 2 days in the office. Whilst most employees are local (within 20 mile commute), there are others who moved away and new staff who've joined who are absolutely not!

We don't ask about logistics at interview; job roles specify it's 2 days in the office and where that is based. At interview, we'll clarify it's a fixed two days and request for fully remote won't be accepted. It's completely up to the staff member whether they travel 2-3 hours each way for two days, or overnight somewhere. It's not my business as a recruiting manager, I employ the best person for the job regardless of where they live.

Someone can think they are being authentic and legitimate all they want – it doesn’t mean they are acting without bias. I didn’t say they are obliged to dig deeper – I said it would be better to.

And indeed why dig deeper when the simplest reason is significant enough. That's like digging deeper to find out why a car is gonna be more effective than a bicycle for a long journey. It blatantly is without the need to dig deeper, which doesn't mean bikes aren't fantastic for some journeys, but not the best for this particular situation. All the talk of bias and discrimination feels like it's seeking to co-opt protected characteristics into this debate, which is frankly patronising, as if a person doesn't live in Newcastle because they enjoy living there and it's not a compromise for them to have to flog back and forth to London for work. There will of course be some scenarios where they are the best employee and it works out for both parties, but in many cases - as experienced by many PPs - they'd rather work closer to home if not in fact at home because they like living there.

I'm the exception to the rule because I don't like living here, and only staying for the children's sake.

As previously mentioned I still need a "bridge" job that would let me continue with my career in 4 years when we can actually move to London or any of the surrounding commuter towns.

I have done it, no issues BUT my employer paid the expenses. Realistically the night train is often cancelled and ticket prices. range from cheap to astronomical. The train and one night a week hotel without other costs you could be looking at £390 a week for 2 days with one overnight. If the track is out of service you will increase to 2 hotel nights. Costs are going to be around £16000 per annum. I would try and negotiate 4 days office 6 wfh.That would be a breeze.

As an HR person I'd be OK with it, I'd just discuss with you whether you'd really thought it through and whether you understood the business can change to requesting more office days if required etc. My husband had a hybrid role when we lived in London, he did 2 days a week on average from Cheltenham (3 hr drive) and paid for his own Premier inn the night in between. It worked fine until we had a baby and then he missed the time away and moved to a London role.
I can see they would be nervous because ultimately it is less than ideal for both parties, if they urgently need you in one day, it's a faff for you and changing the number of office days required will impact you more (if they ever did this), but I worked in many businesses that had people based all over the place or who travelled in from a long distance 1 or 2 days (e.g. people who also worked from a local/regional office and did 1 or 2 days in head office). So it is fine to apply, just be clear in interviews you understand rhe consequences and have factored in the costs and travel impact.

I am currently unemployed and for 7 months now. I did apply for a job which meant going to their HQ once a fortnight. I was told that I lived too far away. I am talking a mile outside of their 40 mile radius! How bloody pathetic. If I did 25 visits a year - that's just 50 miles extra. An 80 mile round trip per fortnight isn't much.

Though I did find a job which requires the candidate to be at their HQ once a month in Glasgow. 320 miles away. Err no.

Within recruiting we state that they are required to be in the office 3 days a week & flexible with what those 3 days will be. (ie once a month they will need to be present on a Friday to ensure it’s fair across the company) They are not set days a week either.

I wouldn’t question a person during an interview but ensure they are aware of the policy in place.

Kindly, it’s possible that the distance thing was an easy reason - as someone who gives feedback post interview to candidates who could very much do the job but just lost out slightly to someone else, it’s hard to give a real why to a “no”.

If a company has its HQ in Glasgow, a monthly visit (presumably with paid travel and good notice of dates) doesn’t seem
unreasonable.

I can see that the monthly visit to Glasgow would be mid week and it’s about 6 hours drive or train it’s 2 or 3 changes. I don’t feel comfortable in doing this.

I would expect the company to pay for a hotel. No mention of this on JD.

I wouldn't expect travel payments to be in the JD - you could always check at interview. If the company has an Edinburgh and an Aberdeen office, for example, staff recruited there would presumably do this trip in a day.

However, if everyone has to do this and their 'base office' is more than, say, 2-3h travel from Glasgow, I would expect a hotel stay to be the policy.

I did email the company (this was back in Jan) and they said that the recruitment day would be at the HQ. Asked if I get any help with the costs of travel etc. No was the answer. I am unable to afford £250-300 for travel and hotel. I have forgotten the name of the company

Have no idea why they can’t do the interview via Teams and there are numeric and other tests on platforms such as Clevry.

Not paying interview costs (which is standard) is totally different to paying the travel costs of your staff.

We will do first round interviews on teams, final interviews in person. HR make us do all or nothing (unless the candidate is not in the country) as it is a fairer comparison between candidates.

I understand your reluctance to spend that money on spec when you are not working though