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?

I have applied for jobs before, and during the interview (sometimes the 2nd or 3rd) i have discussed aspects of the role that i want to negotiate. Salary is one, start times another. Hybrid, had it been A Thing back then, would have been another.

If a company wants someone enough, they may have to adjust their expectations. It is also perfectly reasonable to apply for hybrid roles, and have a plan of how you will get there, that you don't want to or need to share with a potential employer (for eg, you might know someone who lives nearby who will let you stay there a few nights a month)

Employers, especially recruiters, really need to treat their pool of possible employees as grown up adults. And behave like grown up recruiters when checking the applications.

Or indeed people who need to communicate disabilities after being hired.
I have spans where I need to wfh because of a disability. Once I've got the role I can discuss it as a reasonable adjustment. If I only apply for jobs in my sector fully remote that's about one a month mostly full time. And declaring a disability too early is risky

Just because you can do your role at home doesn’t mean no requirement to go in. Who do you think your DC will learn a role from when everyone is working in their bedroom? We are seeing the consequences of that with poor quality, knowledge etc. I’d have struggled hugely in the early years without learning from those office conversations etc

I hear you - it’s the pattern of excuses that gets tiring, especially when the job location and expectations are clear from the outset. I’m all for flexibility when it’s agreed and transparent. But applying for a hybrid role and then acting like commuting is a surprise just drags out the process for everyone. I think post-Covid blurred a lot of lines and some people now treat any role with partial flexibility as fully remote by default, which just isn’t always how it works.

If a company wants someone enough, they may have to adjust their expectations.

Equally, if a person wants the job enough, they may have to adjust their expectations.

But in the current job market, it's usually the employer who gets to choose. It's pretty rare that someone is such a 'catch' that they can get the employers to make special accommodation for them before they've even worked at the company.

I don't think you're being unreasonable but I think I'm surprised to hear that it's a widespread problem. I'd expect people who "refuse" to do the job they were hired for, including coming in to the office when needed, to be fired right away.

well yes, but the OP is specifically complaining about candidates.

But i am also, frankly, sick of seeing ads where it is clear you need postgrad qualifications and 20 years of experience but they want to pay you at entry level. So a dose of reality for recruiters doesn't go amiss.

Yes exactly, just because a role can technically be done from home doesn’t mean that’s always the best setup, especially for newer or junior staff. I’ve seen that too - when there’s no in-person presence, you lose those spontaneous learning moments, mentoring opportunities and even team cohesion. That’s why hybrid setups exist in the first place, to balance flexibility with the kind of shared context that’s hard to recreate on Teams. And when people apply to hybrid roles but have no intention of showing up, that balance gets lost.

Managerial optimism - I would be questioning their judgment if they were making recruitment decisions based on optimism. Ive experienced the fall-out of that -usually means other employees end up picking up the slack..

I guess if you want to tease out whether a candidate's intentions are legit then you have to be very clear in interview that in the event that they are unable to make it into the office as per the contractual ageement then this would potentially result in being let go. I am not a recruiter but if I was on the interview panel I'd go after that issue because everything else is secondary to that... Cant stand ppl who lie/time wasters...

What jobs are you seeing advertised and also seeing the applicants? Is this in your workplace?

Within the tech industry, there is a well-known true story about a talented developer who was not offered an interview because he didn't have enough experience with a certain software. They needed 10 years of experience and were not willing to be flexible on it. He couldn't apply because it had only been 6 years since he developed the software 😂

Some recruiters are utterly useless.

And you'd be wrong. It's an employee issue. If the job states get your arse into work then do so.

Employers need to flip the switch, so advertise jobs as full time office based. Yes you might lose out on the odd great candidate but really most jobs can be done by many people.
then negotiate a day off a week or whatever as a reasonable adjustment.
put off the wfh applicants from applying in the first place

You don't know that people have no intention of commuting though.

I did a 4 hour round trip for 2 days of work - stayed with a relative overnight.

My son commutes similar for his hybrid job at the moment - his Dad lives near the office and he stays overnight with there on his days in.

The days of doffing caps to the boss are way over, perhaps you need to get with the times 😂

I come in once a fortnight usually less because my role can easily be done from
home. Most of the people I work with are based 300 miles away or abroad so I just feel
resentful coming in 🤷‍♀️

Ooh, that's helpful and I didn't know that - even right at the initial stage?

Keeping to the rules you agreed to when accepting the job is hardly 'doffing your cap'.

It doesn’t matter what the reasons for it are - doesn’t change the fact that these men are making company policies that affect thousands of employees in England, which don’t work for lots of other groups of people; particularly working mums!

As I already pointed out, as an employer myself. I'm more interested in having a happy resourceful and excellently skilled team, than giving a shit where they sit.

Employers who are obsessed where people are working or don't trust them need to reevaluate their way of working. Also spite full employees who spend more time spying and bitching about their colleagues rather than concentrating on their own jobs are not someone I want on my team.

Agree. My DD has just taken on three people in junior roles, it's a fantastic opportunity with a great company. There were a lot of good applicants. They have to come into the office 3 set days a week, and for the first 3 weeks every day for training.
I know without a shadow of doubt from what she's told me, they would not get through an interview or probation period if they did not adhere to this. They cannot train properly or fulfil their roles full time from home.
Covid has a lot to answer for, I think some people take the piss out of home working

Surely you realise that what works for you doesn't work for everyone?

Not 'giving a shit where they sit' doesn't make you 'better' than an employer who feels that some office presence is essential for their business. Obviously, if a potential employee doesn't want this they are free not to apply. There will likely be no shortage of decent candidates, so that's not an issue. But if they do choose to accept a job with mandatory office presence, then they're not 'doffing their cap' by keeping to the rules they agreed to.

I'm more bothered about:

• Employers advertising hybrid roles when actually the role is FT in person
• Employers designing elaborate recruitment processes which take hours of unpaid work to get through
• Employers making employees work in offices for no reason (which unfairly penalises anyone with caring responsibilities, primarily women, and anyone with disabilities)
• Employers not even bothering to respond to candidates with a yes or no after applications or interviews
• Employers advertising jobs without salary and then offering an insulting wage at the end of the process

The job advert should state the minimum T & Cs, the applicant then has the choice to apply, and if they get offered the role, attempt to negotiate the T & Cs first offered. The employer has the choice as to how badly they want the candidate if they accept the negotiations or not.

Which is fair if you've raised that at interview. We are three days in the office - no ifs, no buts, no negotiation. But the amount of people that go through the whole recruitment process reiterating at EVERY stage that they can meet the location requirements and hours of work only to try to negotiate at offer stage is INFURIATING. Why would we make an exception for you when every other member of the business is in 3 days? AND we've already checked in with you a thousand times in the interview process. Agggghhhh.

It absolutely makes them a better employer, which will be reflected in the fact they'll get more applicants and better talent for roles they advertise.