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?

Friendly reminder that you have the right to object to automated processing of your personal data and to request a human evaluation.

I do agree with people pointing out other systemic problems in the job market/ society more generally.

I also agree this is A problem.

I think it’s more unfair on other colleagues who do go to the office as instructed - or maybe chose the job because they wanted one where they’d be worked together in the same room as colleagues- to then find the office is a ghost town.

I’m quite laid back about where I work personally but then I do see how it can cause problems of people essentially aren’t honest.

How if all the applications and automated

They are breaching their contract if they are classed as hybrid and refusing to go into the office.

People have always applied for jobs without meeting all the requirement, or even most the requirements.

That's one of the reasons companies use recruitment agencies to short-list people.

People hear the job market is bad, they apply for anything. If they know the conditions are not perfect, they still take the role, and hope to change it later.

Try recruiting people when the role involves weekends! It's impossible.

Surely candidates like this can be weeded out during interview ?
i.e. if they live 100 miles away then they should be scrutinised as to their commitment to come into the office 3 times a week or indeed, eliminated on the basis they live too far away and are therefore unlikely to stay in the job for long or be able to make it into the office 2 or 3 days week. Anyone applying who lives miles away is likely to be blagging it...

I don't think it's a thing that loads of people applying for hybrid working positions have no intention of ever coming in. Surely you'd just get booted out during your probation period if this was the case?

Most HR roles I see advertised require CIPD.

We had one of these at my last job. Required to be in 3 days a week and he kicked off as soon as he started. Left after 6 weeks because too much was being expected of him. Didn't think it was going to be enforced. Lived 120 miles away blah blah blah...
The job - university lecturer. We're required to be in 3 days a week because we teach 3 days a week 🙄It wasn't even all the time. This time of year when it's all exams and assignments we're at home getting on with marking. I won't be going into my current workplace for the next month because I'll be busy marking 100's of exams and assignments.

Yes, interviews should be the point where this gets clarified and in an ideal world, it is. But in practice, some candidates are still progressed even when their availability doesn’t really match the job’s hybrid expectations. Sometimes it’s down to poor questioning, other times it’s optimism from the hiring manager. And you’re right that location can raise flags but it’s not always straightforward. Some people do have genuine arrangements that make long commutes work (family nearby, etc). The issue is more about intention - when people apply knowing they won’t attend regularly, despite the role requiring it. That’s what creates the drag.

Don't take hybrid roles then.

No one is forcing you to.

That’s the ideal scenario, yes, and in some cases it does happen. But in reality, not all hiring managers enforce probation terms consistently, especially when they’re under pressure to fill roles or reluctant to go through the recruitment cycle all over again. What I’ve noticed is a growing pattern of people applying to hybrid roles with the hope or assumption that the in-office bit won’t be enforced - some even say so directly in interviews. So while it should be filtered out, the misalignment is still getting through and that’s where the frustration builds - for both the team and aligned candidates.

Your evidence assumes that 1. everyone is employed by a FTSE 100 company, and 2. the WFH policies are wholly CEO lead. I'd dispute both those statements.

Becuase a lot of roles are advertised as hybrid but in reality they only require you to go on once a month.
My last three roles bave been like this. Advertised as hybrid, the company official policy is say come in three days a week, but in reality the role is mostly remote due to the specific team that you are in and the manager.
So for me, I would apply to hybrid roles and then make a call during the hiring process if the level of hybrid for that role is suited to me.

Sounds like a very incompetent hiring process, doesn't it?

I've found most companies won't offer an interview unless you live within x miles, to be honest. That is why it irritates me so much. I'm sick of getting rejection emails that read, "We're really impressed with your experience/qualifications, etc., but this is a hybrid role, and you live outside our hiring area. We will keep your CV on file for any remote opportunities." One of the companies was literally opposite my sister's front door. It would have taken me less than 30 seconds to walk to the office from my bedroom.

I've also been turned down after interviews for more local roles because I'm not yet driving, and the interviewer decided that my commute would be "too much". This was despite my being very clear in the interview (because I was asked repeatedly about it) that I was fine with the travel time and was learning to drive anyway.

That does sound annoying. But you can't really blame the candidates.

I’m in two minds about this.
On one hand, the employer is reasonable to expect employees to follow their conditions of employment. If they can’t, they should leave and go somewhere else.
However, if an employee is worth keeping, I don’t think it should matter where they work. If they can do the work well enough at home, why not let them? If they can’t, then enforce going into the office.

Depends on how the employer wants to run their organisation. Some feel that face to face works best.

Unfortunately more and more people have an entitlement attitude these days.

THis is just ONE example !

As you say, a waste of time for all those invovled.

If I have ever seen a job that interests me, I ask EARLY on (prior to applying) if hours could be compressed / reduced etc.
If the answer is no, then I either apply with that knowledge or don't.

Never have the audacity to waste their time (or mine during the laboruous application)

You could say the same for people who apply for FT roles and only want part time, or want flexible hours for dependency commitments etc.

Some people apply for jobs knowing they will want to negotiate hours, location, salary and other perks. Interviews are two way processes and it isn't and has never been exclusive to hybrid roles that expectations may vary.

If there is a communication issue during the recruitment process that is the employers issue not the applicants🤷‍♀️

Those people are always going to exist. It doesn't matter what the policy is, someone will flout it consistently, hybrid working today, taking extra days holiday at peak time tomorrow.

You cannot do anything to stop that other than expect the business rules are enforced. And how many of us know an employee that gets away with murder day in day out? I've met loads, nothing touches them. They are like death and taxes, a surity in life

If the employer has specified some time in the office, then clearly that is important to them, otherwise they would not make it a condition of employment.

I would say an employee who tries to flout the rules which they agreed to when accepting the job is unlikely to be 'worth keeping'.

I am tired of all the excuses, the living miles away one particularly gets me, why on earth apply for a job so far away? I’d be embarrassed to be constantly making excuses. Definitely one of the downsides to Covid.

For me, it’s more about alignment from the start. If a role is advertised as hybrid and someone applies knowing they don’t want to ever come in, it creates friction especially if they only reveal that later. If someone wants a remote-only setup, that’s fine but apply to remote roles. If they can do the job remotely and want to negotiate that upfront, great. It’s the mismatch that causes delays and headaches for everyone involved.