To think people applying for hybrid roles while living nowhere near the office - then refusing to come in - are part of why the job market feels so broken right now?

[YourRealMauveSnake]

I keep seeing jobs advertised as hybrid (e.g. 1-2 days in the office) but loads of people applying clearly have no intention of ever commuting. It clogs up the process for people who actually can attend in person and probably makes employers less flexible overall. Is this just me being petty or is it actually a thing?

Thats for the recruitment team to worry about...'

Thats what happens when you get robots to recruit humans. It all falls to shite.

Bring back proper CVs and interviews with a well trained HR department.

No one does HR training anymore have you noticed?

Fair but it still affects real candidates when a hiring process gets flooded with people who don’t intend to follow the basic terms (like showing up in person). I agree that automation hasn’t helped but I don’t think it excuses applicants gaming the system either. Both things can be true.

You’re right OP

has affected the market 😶

I can only speak for me, but my role is based in London (no other options) but I can't afford to live in London anymore.

I do come in weekly - I'm sure my boss would like me to come in more but it takes 2hrs each way (used to take far less but the trains are slower) and costs £250 a month commute for one day a week.

I'm a single parent with little support. I've already been pushed out of the city I was born and raised in - I will try my hardest not to be pushed out of my career due to my ability to be in the office at 9am.

I agree with you, OP. You can't just apply for a job with clearly stated requirements and then kick off when you're given the job and actually expected to meet those requirements.

I'm sure these people would be far from happy if the employer suddenly decided to pay them a lot less than was originally stated and agreed a few weeks after they'd started.

I'd suggest it's management issue rather than recruitment

Surely if someone fails to do the job they were employed to do, including in the place they were employed to do it, the the company can get rid of them. Imagine teachers preferring to teach on line and the parents had the children at home every day!

Completely agree op. This happened with someone I recruited last year who it was made very clear to our 3 day per week requirement. Months and months of complaining at the rest of the team, being grumpy and and trying get around it ensued and just made it a for horrible environment. Why apply for a job with very clear requirements if you don’t want to meet them?

I live about 20 minutes from the office and I still only manage to get in once or twice a week. Commuting sucks. It's reasonable people want to avoid it. So long as the work is being done, I don't see the issue. And if not going in enough is detrimental to their work, these people won't pass probation, right?

They've always been people applying (and getting!) jobs they're not actually best suited to. It's inevitable. I don't think the WFH trend really moves the needle on this.

Why do people need to be in for 3 days a week?

Smacks of "we've paid for an office, so you have to use it" Some of us dont want to waste around 10 hours a week (hour in and hour out) traveling

Yes it annoys me too OP. Don’t apply for a job in London then moan you can’t come in.

I have colleagues who live in 4 bedroom houses complaining about the cost of getting to work. They want it both ways. I want the London salary but accept I’m never going to be able to afford a home like theirs because I live in London.

I get that, commuting does suck and I don’t blame anyone for wanting flexibility. My issue is more with people applying for roles clearly marked as hybrid but treating them like they’re remote-only. I’m not against WFH at all, it’s more the mismatch between what’s advertised and what applicants are realistically willing to do that seems to be muddying the waters. You’re right though, it’s not a brand new issue, perhaps just one that feels more visible now.

I agree with you.

Some of my colleagues live 100+ miles away. We are supposed to come in to the office 2 days a week. 1 of them negotiated just coming in 1 day and tbf does do so. 1 of them comes in 2 days a week but moans continuously about having to do so. 1 of them is supposed to come in every other week but I haven’t seen him in weeks.

What is happening is that at interview people say they will commute for 2 days a week then they do it for a month then negotiate because it’s too difficult. At interview stage we are not allowed to say no based on where they live, it has to be how they perform at interview.

Parking is also allocated on priority need and those living further away get priority so now people who are hardly ever in the office will get a parking permit so they can get a space every time they come into the office even if it’s once every 3 months. Those of us who live closer (and who have paid a fortune to live commutable distance) won’t get a permit even though we are coming into the office more often. People with children used to get priority too but now we don’t.

@cadburyegg that seems very unfair about the parking permits. It should be based on how many times you’re in, not just distance

This is entirely the employers call, they don’t have to justify it to you!
if you don’t like their rules……don’t work there.
A place of work is not an adult day care setting, nor a place to pander to employees.

I don’t understand, if it is in your contract to do certain things, how can you ‘refuse’?
and if you refuse, surely you are sacked?

I don’t disagree - forcing people in just because an office exists is a poor reason. But when a role is advertised as hybrid (e.g. 2-3 days in), it’s fair to expect applicants to factor that in. The issue isn’t with people wanting to avoid commuting - it’s with people applying to roles that do require it, then pushing back as if it wasn’t clearly stated. That’s where it creates bottlenecks for everyone else.

I keep seeing jobs advertised as hybrid (e.g. 1-2 days in the office) but loads of people applying clearly have no intention of ever commuting.

Can I ask how you are seeing this information (people's location/ intentions when applying)? Are you in a hiring role?

I agree - if it's a hybrid role, you need to come in. I have no idea about who applies though!

Is this in your workplace, @YourRealMauveSnake? Or are you in recruitment?

What is happening is that at interview people say they will commute for 2 days a week then they do it for a month then negotiate because it’s too difficult. At interview stage we are not allowed to say no based on where they live, it has to be how they perform at interview.

That must be infuriating. How could an employer somehow weed this out? I agree you can't based purely on distance.

Whether it's right isn't the issue. If the company has made a business decision to make attendance at the office a requirement people shouldn't apply for roles they're not prepared or able to fulfil.

In theory, yes, you sign up for a contract and not meeting those terms should have consequences. But in reality, enforcement is often inconsistent. Some employers don’t want to push too hard during probation or are desperate to fill roles, so people end up staying despite clearly not meeting the hybrid expectation. That’s what I was getting at - this disconnect creates frustration on both sides, especially for those who are willing to meet the terms.

It's a management problem – they need to be more robust with sticking to policy.

i was always told if you think you can do a job apply for it even if you don’t tick every box. I don’t tick the box of being prepared to do hybrid work, but if I am the best or most qualified candidate the employer may well be willing to compromise so why shouldn’t I apply?

It has always been said men will apply for jobs if they tick most of the requirements, whereas many women think they need to tick everyone.

I also see a lot of jobs advertised as remote and then in the last paragraph it says that there is a requirement to go into the office x-days a week- so it swings both ways

I’m not in a formal hiring role but I’ve been involved in shortlisting and supporting recruitment a few times recently and I’ve seen applicants based hours away applying for hybrid roles that clearly require regular office presence. In some cases, they’ve even said in interviews or follow-ups that they’re “hoping the in-office bit won’t be enforced.” It just feels like there’s a growing trend of people applying to anything labelled ‘hybrid’ and treating it as remote by default. I’m all for flexibility but when the expectations are clear upfront, it gets messy.