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?

Don’t expect others to lower their expectations for a decent family life just because you’ve decided to be a martyr / slave to the workplace!

If somebody advertises a job, giving their clear requirements, it doesn't matter whether you think they should or shouldn't pay somebody to do the job that they want doing, in the way that they want it doing.

If that's not the job that you want to do, or not the way that you want to do that job, nobody is forcing you to apply for it.

Most roles don’t actually require it though. It’s just employer preference. Usually a decision made by a straight white male in his 50s/60s who has no childcare responsibilities and is rich so can live in a 4 bed house in London.

Yeah I do agree that people shouldn’t wait to tick every box especially with how job specs are written. And yes, some ads are definitely misleading (remote vs hybrid gets blurred all the time).

My point is more about the intentional mismatch: people applying to roles that clearly state regular office attendance, while having zero intention of ever doing that part. If someone applies hoping to negotiate - fair enough. But a pattern of treating hybrid as remote-only does muddy things for candidates who are actually willing to meet the terms. So yes, it does swing both ways and I think clearer expectations (from both sides) would help.

This happens at my large employer, people applying who live at the other end of the country. They say they’ll come in, do a couple of times then just stay home and wait to see if we sack them. Generally not.

Im really not keen on hybrid. Networking is important. If everybody wfh then you set up a network, if everyone’s in the office then it’s easy. In hybrid nothing set up properly for wfh but also not everyone in the office at the same time so the networking element doesn’t work.

if employers want people in then fine, waste of money in my view but they will have their reasons.

Perfect response.

Interviews should be down to a mix of the candidates experience and the interviewer’s judgement, not about who scores more points based on using the most buzzwords.

It's not the 1950s!

There are people of both genders and of all ages, races and family set ups in management these days.

Anyway, it's up to the employer to decide what their business 'requires' or not. If you refuse to leave your home for work then obviously you should not apply for a job which requires some time in the office.

@YourRealMauveSnake I employ people who can do the job, if they can do the job from home they are not required in the office.

I advertise hybrid working to appeal to all, my recruitment team can filter out the best candidates. I think you need do do your own job and move with the times, it just shows how inflexible you are and if your threatened by a colleague who choses to work from home and if you consider your only advantage is you want to work in the office for a few days or more then I suggest you train harder at your role and become more flexible.

Wining on a public forum, is not a good luck for someone claiming to be above others and says a lot about you.

I'd be interested to see the evidential support for that statement.

I often recruits for roles in my team. You cannot stop people from applying! It's up to the recruiter to look at every application on its merit. I have offered positions to people who had to commute a long way and it is part of the interview process to clearly state that office presence on certain days is mandatory.

Have you ever recruited?

At least 50% of applicants are completely unsuitable for basic reasons. This is nothing new and no, it isn't why the job market is "broken", whatever that means.

That doesn’t sound like “I’m seeing jobs advertised” 🤔

Way before “hybrid” was the in thing, I applied for roles that were fully office based and at in applications and interviews made it clear I needed 2 WFH days. My view was, they either want me or they don’t. The reality is, if an applicant is the best, most employers will work with them to be able to hire them. I work for a company who had never offered WFH pre-covid. My CV was gold dust, because of the experience I have. They are able to win work they wouldn’t have had a chance of getting without me. They interviewed other candidates who would work in the office 5 days a week but didn’t have my experience. Post Covid, I’m the only one permanently on a 3 WFH/ 2 office based and actually they don’t even enforce that. They know I’m worth keeping.

If people only applied for jobs where they tick every single box, nobody would ever apply for a job. The employer is free to choose which boxes are most important to them. The job market is always evolving. This is no different.

I agree OP. I’ve seen it at my company. People taking roles clearly stated as hybrid 2 days in and then complaining and acting victimised when the company tries to enforce it.

It’s strange behaviour. It also makes it harder for people living a distance from an office but still willing to travel, to get jobs. This is because employers are becoming more wary they’ll hire a chancer.

I have no idea of the statistics, but working in the professional part of the construction industry, this is definitely a thing.

You’ve really misread the tone and intention of my post. I’m not against remote work - far from it. I’m talking about hybrid roles that are clearly advertised as requiring some in-office presence and people applying with zero intention of ever doing that.

This kind of misalignment slows down hiring and creates frustration for applicants who are aligned with the job’s requirements. This isn’t about feeling threatened or claiming superiority- it’s about transparency and realistic expectations on both sides. No need for the personal jabs.

I’ve supported shortlisting and recruitment a few times recently, so yes, I know that unsuitable applicants aren’t new. What I’m noticing is a specific pattern in hybrid roles: people applying from far away with no intention of ever coming in, even when in-office expectations are clearly stated. I’m not saying it’s the only reason the job market feels difficult but it’s part of the wider mismatch between job ads, expectations and candidate behaviour that seems to be frustrating everyone - from applicants to hiring teams.

We’re hybrid now, one set day a month in the office, otherwise you come in if you need to/want to. Suits me fine.

I’ve recruited twice since we went hybrid. First time I included we were open to hybrid working and received hundreds of applications from all over the world. Took ages to shortlist. Second time I stipulated hybrid after a qualifying period with weekly in person work in <name of town>. Still had some applications from other continents but much better than the first time. What really naffed me off was the number of people who just sent a cv without including any additional info setting out their relevant experience and skills, complete waste of everyone’s time and obviously not very interested in actually doing the job.

How do you know they're not willing to come in?

I apply for jobs in Leeds, Derby, and Nottingham despite living in the NE because I have family I could stay with in those areas. It irritates when it is assumed I won't/can't attend the office. I wouldn't have applied if I couldn't do the job described.

This is not the reason the job market is broken

The job market is broken because of unfair distribution of wealth.

Shame on the skiving plebs for wanting a bit of WFH instead of bums on seats presenteesim 🤔

In the example you give, it’s fine to negotiate a WFH version of the job at interview. Not fair to try and negotiate that afterwards, having stopped another applicant from getting it who would have been successful if you’d been upfront at your interview.

This is up to the interviewers and HR to make sure the interviewees know they are expected in or probation fails.

Sometimes people live in more remote areas and for various reasons can't move to where there are more jobs. Being able to work remotely or in a hybrid fashion is helpful to those who don't have those opportunities when expected to attend a place of work on a daily basis.

But the onus is on the recruiting team to ensure policies and consequences for not attending on expected days are properly communicated. The management and HR team are to ensure that probation is failed when the employees don't meet their contractual obligations.

Blaming the employee is a bit low, each workplace has someone or more than one in place to ensure things happen as expected, where is their responsibility to ensure everyone gets fair treatment?

There have always been many such patterns. In my industry around 30% of applicants for any role are based in completely different countries from the site-based role they're applying for, even before working from home was so common. If recruiters are getting frustrated over this one thing in particular, that's very odd.

Sure there are. But it is also true that in 2000, 96.4 percent of CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies were white men. By 2020 that had reduced to 85.8.

Similar figures are found in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250. Incidentally they are also paid less.

Given this group of companies is generally considered to be reflective of the employment market as a whole, it is unlikely the figures are much different for the rest of the market.

You are correct it isn’t the 1950s, but given in the 65 years from when it was created in 1955 and 2000 there was only an improvement of 4.6% in the figures, we’re not as far past the 1950s as you’d like to think.

There have always been people who have not lived near enough their work to commute. It never used to be a question of not going in, simply that people had to make their own arrangements - renting a room, hotel, buying a flat nearby etc etc. I have no time for people who get a job then say they cant go in - unless there is a material change in their circumstances.

I think when you talk about “refusing” it’s a type of silent refusing, so they find reasons not to etc. which makes it harder to manage but agree it should be addressed both at recruitment, and during probation.

When I chaired a meeting for 55 people and gave no teams option, but said people could ask me if they needed it as an adjustment, I had attendance of all except one in person.

It was a lot of effort and needed several months notice but it was worth it. It doesn’t work for more regular co-locating.