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?

People have always lied it’s not new, it’s just a new thing to lie about.

and it doesn’t need hr to reply to the other poster it just needs a recruiting manager who can read and knows that if their job is in Manchester then a candidate living in Devon is probably not going to work

Did you make clear in your application that your sister lived so close? And do you make clear when applying for jobs in Leeds, Derby or Nottingham that you'd be able to stay there too?

Have you not yet been introduced to Teams, phones, or emails? I've had no trouble being trained or training others in my WFH role.

Not true. How would you know that sort of info when you're applying? Unless you already know someone there.

I've started not inviting people to interview if they live too far away because we've had so many issues with this.

We hired 3 people last year all of whom swore they were happy to commute 3 days, despite living a couple of hours away.

They now won't fucking come in. Its annoying, we've got juniors who need to learn from them. They do 2 days in a (rare) good week, 1 day is more typical. They don't come at all some weeks.

I'm not sure how having a job with certain requirements makes you a 'better' employer than someone without those requirements.

And these days there is rarely a shortage of applicants and 'talent' for most jobs, so they'll likely have no trouble finding plenty of 'talented' candidates.

No of course not but FTSE companies lead the way. And damn sure there’s no “in the office” policies that aren’t 100 per cent supported by the CEO. They literally lead the culture of the company

Its completely true, just because your narrow minded views don't agree does not make it untrue, my long standing workforce with extremely low turn over says otherwise.

Not at all what you said!: which will be reflected in the fact they'll get more applicants and better talent for roles they advertise.
You're getting attraction and retention confused.
And name-calling is infantile.

Hopefully they are now being put through a PIP for failure to comply with their terms of employment?

🙄Should you not be back in the office ushering in all your colleagues and ticking the register.

Where on earth have you got that from?!

It’s not the same as face to face interaction, listening to other work conversations, and the proof is in the pudding for us. Home working does not help new recruits and it’s pretty selfish for all those who benefitted from that to now refuse to go in. All those in my team do themselves no favours when it comes to progression.

That feels like a weird argument, because where I grew up, remote work was very common (even in the 90s).

And we learned from our parents how to conduct yourself at work. That mum's office isn't to be disturbed. That this is how she manages official mail etc. That today we're all hanging out at one person's house and tomorrow the parents will swap because they're all working remotely through the summer holidays.

I learned far more about management and motivation from my mum who worked at home than my dad who worked in an office - until he went remote, that is.

I think part of the problem is that often roles are advertised as hybrid (2 - 3 days in the office), but in reality this isn’t a requirement or expectation. My current role was advertised as 2 days in the office (which I was fully willing to do) but there is absolutely no expectation for me to be in. I think I last went in 3 months ago.

I have, in some cases, where I have had the opportunity to upload a cover letter or provide existing details; however, some only asked for my CV and then had a series of tick boxes to complete.

I do think I should be treated as an adult, though, and if I tick a box that states I am aware it is a hybrid role, and another box to state I can reliably commute it is because I am aware it is a hybrid role, and I can reliably commute. My employer doesn't need any more details than that.

Plus, surely, if I want to travel 3 hours there and 3 hours back because I have decided a role is worth the commute for whatever reason, that is my choice, is it not?

But they do it then for exactly the same reason as you find it infuriating - they have a lot more leverage then than they had during the interview process. It makes perfect sense as a tactic for them.

I disagree. There are loads of different employment niches.

Tech is rife with home working. Small businesses aren't there "following the lead" of the FTSE100 (indeed, it would be rather stupid of them to ape an entirely different business model). Numerous charities not only can cut costs by WFH, they can also accommodate workers with limited capacity which is often part of their mission. Heck, I was bloody annoyed to be told I needed to be suited and booted by a small business to meet our FTSE100 partner, when they were all in cami tops and sandals.

It's a very inaccurate view of the working world to think FTSE100 is that influential.

I don't disagree that ideally a potential employer would assume that you know what you're doing. However, I'd imagine that, for some of the reasons discussed on here, many are cautious about progressing an application from anyone who doesn't immediately seem like they tick the boxes (and yes, I know that 'ticking boxes' is a problematic method when it comes to applying and recruiting).

But it's a really risky tactic. We have great candidates apply for our roles. It's a very high level of arrogance to assume you are so special that we'll give you benefits no other colleagues get, that we've checked repeatedly you don't need! Worst case scenario you lose out on the role. Depends how important it is for you, I guess.

To meet with clients?! A huge part of our job is client facing - face to face. It’s brilliant. Hate the amount of Teams and Zooms calls we had to endure in lockdown. Why would anyone want to do that on a regular basis?!

I still think that's odd. It's not a candidate's market any more - unless you're in engineering - so candidates don't get to call the shots. On Linkedin, in my industry, vacancies are getting hundreds of applications, so I find it odd that any hirer would be so desperate to fill a role that they'd take someone who made it clear in their interview that they had no intention of fulfilling the role as described.

I understand that, it's just frustrating when you're applying and being constantly rejected for reasons that don't actually apply to you.

I've just been offered and accepted a job earlier today, so hopefully my frustrations are over now.

Ironically, due to shitty local transport links, despite it being a 20 minute drive, it is going to take me 2 hours each way on public transport. It would only have taken 90 minutes to travel to Leeds via public transport.

They seem to have a really good team dynamic and progression opportunities, so I have decided the travel will be worth it until I pass my driving test.

Then you wouldn't apply for a job there, surely?

I think all of this is part of a general trend of people taking jobs they know perfectly well they can't/don't want to do the hours and expecting the employers to give in to pressure once they've got their feet under the table.

Sounds like the managent should be stricter with enforcing the office days. Someone tries to negotiate less tome in office. Say no. Someone not coming in required amount for time, call them out. If they have reason then tell them to come in for 4 days the following week etc.

That being said. My bf is one of these people. He had the intention to come in 2 days a week and the first month he did. He was actually looking forward to having some human interaction. But nobody spoke to him in the office besides saying hello when he walks past. Everyone has lunch/coffee breaks sat the desk. Team meetings are on teams even if everyone is at the office. So he basically goes there to sit alone at his desk and then goes home. I can't really blame him for pushing the boundary.