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?

Yeah I agree that applicants shouldn’t be judged solely by postcode. My issue isn’t with people like you, who’ve clearly considered logistics and apply with a plan in mind. It’s with people who apply, then later state outright they won’t be coming in at all, even for roles that clearly require regular in-office attendance.

As I mentioned upthread, 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’s not about geography, it’s about intention. And I think we’d have far less frustration on all sides if expectations were clearer upfront and more aligned.

lots of people apply for jobs where they don't fit all the criteria. If a company really thinks they're worth it, they will overlook some of that, so that also includes hybrid working.

It may be possible, for eg, to negotiate to come to the office twice a month with travel and a hotel included so they can work 4 days in the office. Only the company will know if they think that's worth it.

It is barmy to only apply for jobs where you fulfil 100% of the criteria in the ad.

Well, because they haven't. Did you read the OP?

Surely if someone refuses to accept the conditions of the job, they simply don't get offered the job? And if they try to stop coming in after they're employed, you deal with it through the official channels, up to and including dismissal?

Equally OP it might be that employers need to accept that the world of work has changed and that employees have different expectations now.

People working remotely also can mean that employers have a wider and more diverse pool of employees to select from, rather than just people who live in close proximity to the office.

If there is a genuine need for people to be on site then it has to be made clear in the job ad and at the interview stage.

But things like 'we want you on site just because we have an office building' or 'the manager can't deal with managing people remotely' or 'we don't trust grown adults to work remotely' is not genuine need...

I actually agree with a lot of this - clear policies and consistent enforcement from management and HR are key, and when that doesn’t happen, it creates the confusion I’m talking about. I’m not blaming individuals for wanting or needing remote flexibility, especially those who apply in good faith with realistic expectations.

The frustration is more with the pattern of people applying for hybrid roles with no intention of attending - even when expectations are clearly outlined - and then pushing back once hired. That creates problems for hiring teams and for candidates who are happy to meet the stated terms. So yes, there’s a systemic issue here too but mismatched expectations on both sides are making a tricky job market worse.

That’s what probationary periods are for.

If there is something for you as an employer that is an absolute red line, you make that abundantly clear at interview. Very few people will then take a job if they know it’s a deal breaker. If during the recruitment process you have someone who lives really far from the office, you make doubly sure.

But people not being entirely upfront at interviews and turning out to be unsuitable, is nothing new. It’s just fashionable at the moment to pick hybrid working as the thing to whine about.

https://standout-cv.com/stats/leadership-statistics-uk#:~:text=90%25%20of%20FTSE%20100%20CEOs,are%2010%20times%20more%20profitable.

• 90% of FTSE 100 CEOs are men, and 96% are white.

I applied for a hybrid role 4 hours away. I do two days with an overnight stay and everyone is happy with that.

They knew where I lived, I clarified upon offer what the expectation was and it was fine and has worked well.

So if I hadn’t applied I wouldn’t have found this job.

And you’ve seen that happen several times with the “few” times you’ve been “involved” in recruiting?

There's lots of bottlenecks right now. A big one is that AI has made applying to a lot of jobs quicker. Then there's the job sites which persist on sending jobs which very rarely match what someone's filters say and who have made applying with CV basivally so quick there's no point checking . And the people uploading jobs who frequently mark hybrid roles as remote but bury that in the very long description.

If you have a veryk long job application process people are going to speed up applying and apply for anything that evwn vaguely fits because they need to work. That means some will drop out too.

I get this a lot. Couldn't be clearer at interview that requirement is minimum two days in office. All good with candidate and then as soon as they are hired theres an issue with leaving to dog home alone or doing the school run or getting child care or general anxiety about the outside world or, or, or.... It's frustrating and causes bad feeling amongst the team members who do show up when required.

there are plenty of studies showing white males are by far the majority of CEOs, it’s not a secret!

i can't remember where it was, but i'm sure i read an article a couple of years ago stating that there were more CEOs called David than there were female CEOs.

That says it all for me.

In one post pp intimated that recruting is difficult - that means they aren't offering the right package. And that may just be more WFH than office days or something. Negotiate with the best candidate.

It’s a candidate issue - if the role involves coming into the office a couple of days a week, don’t be surprised if this is enforced if you get the job. If you fail to come in as per your contract of employment, don’t be surprised if you are dismissed if you fail to comply.

I’ve seen this quite a lot too.

People take the job, do the 2/3 days (or whatever) in the office for a month or so, and then either let it slide or start coming up with reasons why they can’t.

Either it’s a different excuse every day or they ask for an exemption because “I live so far away”. But you applied for this job, in this location!

And don’t get me started on the people who moved away during lockdown and then wanted an exemption…

Presumably that’s in the UK ( where until fairly recently the large majority of the population were white, and a lot of women took career breaks so we’re unlikely to make CEO).

Think there is just as much a problem the other way.

DS1 is looking for another job after "2/3 days a week in the office, occasionally more" actually turned out to be "in the office every day with occasionally 2 days wfh when it's very very very quiet".

And not just small employers doing this either - JCB removed pretty much all wfh from people on a whim and basically said "well fuck off elsewhere then" when BIL pointed out he'd been employed on a 2 day wfh/3 office contract just 3 months before

Yes, in theory it’s that simple and I agree that if someone refuses to meet the terms, the process should filter them out or deal with them during probation. But in practice, enforcement is often inconsistent. Hiring managers may be under pressure to fill roles quickly or hesitant to dismiss someone too soon, even when there’s a clear mismatch.

My point is really about the growing pattern of people applying to hybrid roles as if they’re remote and how that mismatch is becoming more visible and frustrating for everyone involved especially when expectations were clearly stated up front.

I agree op.

im job hunting at the moment. I’m ruling out any that I know I’d have trouble committing to. It lowers my opportunities but I wouldn’t dream of having the cheek to suddenly change the goalposts once my feet are under the table.

I don't know how you know what other candidates for a job may or may not do about hybrid working? Or where they live?

Unless of course that's happening in your own workplace and it's affecting your job or workload.

Then speak to HR and ask them if there can be a committee about recruitment practices and you'd like to head it up? That's obviously a bit tongue in cheek as I can't imagine anyone having time to want to do such things.

Or ask that you have more autonomy in recruitment of your team.

Yes, even being involved a handful of times is enough to notice patterns - especially when the same issues come up across different roles or rounds of recruitment. I’m not claiming to be a seasoned HR manager, just sharing what I’ve repeatedly seen: candidates applying for hybrid roles with no intention of commuting and that misalignment causing avoidable delays or frustrations. I’ve said from the start - it’s not everyone but it’s common enough to be noticeable.

There are a lot of reasons why the job market is broken. I would include using AI for sifting CVs. So many great candidates getting rejected because 'computer says no'. There's a huge amount of competition for remote and hybrid roles, literally hundreds of people going for the same role. And then there's the employers who advertise roles and then withdraw them at the last minute.

I applied for a job with clearly stated requirements, planned to meet their requirements and they acted like I was completely mental for trying to attend as often as I did.

In a "soft" way, it's down to managers, and it's a soft way for managers looking for niche skills to give a pay boost to individuals they want to employ/retain.

My skills and qualifications are quite niche and I could earn double in the private sector quite easily. They don't actually need me in the office (more valuable to work across the country as hoc tbh), and it enables them to step outside of the pay scales a little to give me the London rate whilst living elsewhere.

My manager more or less told me to stop asking and spelling this out because I was anxious to attend appropriately.

Fair enough… I’m not claiming to have insight into every candidate but I’ve supported shortlisting and interview logistics a few times recently across different teams and it’s come up now than once. In some cases, candidates themselves have openly said they’re hoping the in-office requirement won’t be enforced. That’s where the disconnect comes in, it’s not just guesswork.

I’m not looking to run HR, promise! I’m just reflecting on how this kind of misalignment slows things down and adds friction for everyone involved.