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?

Equally employers need to not advertise hybrid to be attractive and then have totally different terms once you start. My partner has just taken a new job, was told one compulsory day in the office a month the next city over and then one day in that office at a time of your choosing.

The truth is one day a week in the next city over office, quarterly trip to London and every other month to Edinburgh office.

it’s fine for us at the moment but for a lot of people it wouldn’t work and they’d need to withdraw.

Congrats and best of luck with the job!

Depends massively on the job and the balance of power between employee and employer really. Some people are being ridiculous when they do this, others realistic.

If a particular organisation is seeing this happen a lot, they may have to face up to the possibility that what they are offering isn't attractive enough to get 3 days in the office, and if the wfh options aren't going to change, something else will have to. The more it happens, the less likely it is that the recruiters are just unlucky/shit and the more likely it is that this is simply what the package they are offering will buy.

Or in generpa explain what their hybrid means. My bf interviewd at a company advertising hybrid (no mention of anything else). Their version was that employees were allowed to wfh 2 days/month.

I'm now in a wfh job and I do miss the office banter, sharing cakes, socialising etc. But my word, I cannot believe how much money and time I've saved without the commute! I know lots of people who applied for hybrid jobs With no intention of going into the office! My friend makes loads of excuses as to why she can't come in!!!

Yep. And if it's happening all the time, that indicates that it isn't a problem with the recruitment process, it's the company not realising that the package they offer isn't attractive enough to bring in the staff they want, with the office hours they want. Proof is in the pudding.

My partner has landed a high flying job by applying for jobs like this but making it clear it would need to be entirely remote to suit him.

The recent job move has been his pay jump by 30k and he gets to fly to multiple countries first class and do all kinds of exciting stuff.

If you're complaining about it you're actually complaining that companies can hire better candidates when you feel you may have got the job by proximity if that werr part of the criteria. You should think about upskilling yourself instead.

For businesses it's great it means you can hire better candidates.

tbh they don't read the covering letters.

When i was going back to work post DCs, i explicitly wrote that I was going back after maternity and that my DH was taking the next few years off to be a SAHP.

I was, amazingly, invited to interview. And (on a panel interview with 9 candidates, only woman) asked, in front of everyone "and what will you do if your child is ill?" "but you child will want its mum"

Ever since then? fuck 'em. I apply for everything and anything i want to apply for.

Congrats on new job!

I’m a teacher who (like thousands of other teachers are doing) switched to teaching online, I make wayyy more money and have a great work life balance :D

This goes both ways.
I’ve seen plenty of roles advertised as remote but requiring set days in the office. Or flexible working but everyone must be in Tuesday - Wednesday.
Also many companies will recruit and advertise a role with their current hybrid arrangement, and issue old contracts which state normal place of work as [office], reference the flexible working policy but that it’s subject to change. So you might apply for a hybrid role & be told to be in the office on set days a year in.

I think this is correct as far as it goes. And if employers started to do this, it might stop people from taking the piss.

What might be trickier is if people wait out their probation coming in to the office, and then start to skive off after they are no longer on probation. It's not impossible for the employer but more difficult.

In a way it creates a worse situation for all employees. My last employer in a small organization tried really hard to work with employees who had unforseen and real reasons to need flexibility, a long-time employee whose mother developed dementia, for example. Unfortunately there were eventually a number of employees who clearly were taking advantage and saw the flexibility as an entitlement. The result being, that flexibility disappeared for all.

So while I'd agree employers need to take action, it's not ok as an employee to behave that way just because you think you can get away with it. You wonder what else those employees might feel they can get away with too.

It doesn't help that so many companies say hybrid, but then neglect to say where they are based.

I came across loads advertised like this and you then have to look up where they are based and hope that they mean that location and not some kind of satellite office.

I think poor or weak management and HR are a significant part of the issue.

Of course if people can save money and time by wfh more than agreed they will try to do so. Even before you factor in building issues or colleagues who annoy you even unintentionally.

But we get the staff we want. The candidates trying it on at offer stage just end up not getting the job, one way or another. There iare often a few really, really good candidates and some of them end up negotiating themselves out of an offer by being difficult. But why waste my time and theirs getting to that point?

I'm experiencing this at the moment with recruitment, and it's a repeating problem. The role is an outreach one in a charity. It's essential the office has staff in it every day in case we have drop-ins so we hybrid work on a rota. Although we each work specific days at home, sometimes that has to change at short notice if we need to see someone in the community.

We keep getting applicants who accept the terms and then start pushing for less time in the office when they get the job, despite us making it clear in interview what the requirements are and why. The pressure is then on other team members who have to come in to the office more in order to meet the needs of the service users.

We're a small local charity. Recruitment and training is expensive. It's not a case of 'just fail probation and rehire' when people do this.

It depends on the pay… I have to go into London but the train fare in 2/3 my day rate… and there’s literally no reason for my role to be in the office apart from bums on seats numbers to justify the rent I imagine. So I can well understand people negotiating not to go in. Really don’t see how it affects the market… apart from wages being too low to allow people to commute

Because employers tend to put "opportunities for work from home" or "hybrid" or "flexible working options" in the advert and then clarify what they offer at interview.

It's the same outcome. Companies that treat their staff like respected professionals and give them the freedom to decide where to work, so long as the work is done to a good standard, will attract better staff, retain better staff and have a happier, more diverse, and more productive workforce.

Companies that treat their staff like naughty children, micromanage them, and deliberately fight against their work-life balance, will have staff who act like naughty children.

If the company can be flexible on working at home then anyone should be able to work at home. Yes as a carer I find it useful to work from home but I don't see why Jim 30 single, no responsibilities can't have the same flexibility if he wants.

That's not taking the piss it's being fair.

Why do we have a system where we all have to behave in a performative manner just because it suits some levels of management to justify their roles and some employees who work better from a work base than at home?

I'm self employed so I'm very motivated and set up to work from home when I take on a contract. It shouldn;t matter if I have responsibilities at home or not, if it can be offered and the employee is covering their prescribed work there is bugger all reason why they should be in the office anymore than someone like myself who needs to be around home.

They should just be fired.

I've worked in a lot of jobs over the last few years owing to short-term contracts and a mix of remote, hybrid, and office work. I've found that a lot of office-based roles are just a bums on seats exercise due to a lack of trust or poor management, and the companies that struggle with productivity with remote work always have weak managers in charge and a culture of micromanagement and poor leadership.

I don't actually mind going into the office, I'd probably choose to work hybrid given a choice, but I do resent being made to work 100% from an office because my manager cannot effectively lead and motivate their team.

I also disagree that training cannot be done from home in most roles. If you struggle with that, it's a management issue, not an issue with remote work.

If you get the staff you want, it can't be that much of an issue then? In which case, your organisation doesn't fall within that category.

I still fail to see how your link supports this statement:

'ConkerGame · Today 13:35
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.'

FTSE 100 companies are not the blueprint for how other businesses run and CEOs are macro not micro. The actual placement of an employee's backside is not relevant to them, the business results are. Decisions are made off the back of productivity and sales analytics.

Edit: failed to quote @ConkerGame 's link, which renders my post rather useless. Apologies!

One of the problems with the WFH culture is that there are still jobs which can't be done from home, and don't have a lot of flexibility, but with more and more people coming into the job market with expectations of flexibility, it's harder to find staff who don't think they can write the rules. Hence you get parents doing jobs with Christmas working being surprised when they get rostered in for Christmas and begging childless colleagues to swap.

It's become more and more of an expectation now that employees should be able to pick their hours, particularly with kids. The concept of fitting your lifestyle to a job is diminishing in favour of fitting a job to your lifestyle. And then people wonder why so many jobs in the care and hospitality sector are being filled by people from overseas. It's not just the low wages, wages have always been low for those types of jobs, it's the fact that presenteeism is becoming a dirty word, and having to work to the job's needs, not your own is anathema.

That's not to say I don't agree with PPs who think one shouldn't have to sit in an office when you could easily WFH, but the increased expectations of flexibility are making it difficult for employers for whom it actually is crucial to have people present at specific times.