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 recruit a lot- finance function of 250 people with 4 main offices across the UK. 40% in office requirement. That’s our policy and it isn’t up to candidates to decide they don’t agree with it- poor cultural fit if they think that.

We have evidence we have more risk events at home.

It is now an interview question and something we track closely, with managers told that not coming in enough without an agreed exception is a performance issue.

There’s frustrations on both sides- lots of companies are not clear on their expectations regarding days in the office and/or don’t implement their own policy. Equally employees sometimes decide that they don’t want to adhere to the policy or it doesn’t apply to them.

I would hate it from a personal level, but my work load managing this stuff would decrease if everyone was in 5 days a week. It takes up a great deal of time!

If you say so.
Not everything is down to an employer being shit you know. It's very possible for employees to be shit. And when employers lean into AI or nationals from other countries don't be crying here. Just keep going with more of your 'Employers are at fault for everything' bollocks 😂

I think there has to be a balance, lots of people are finding that hybrid or flexible working gives them a better work-life balance, less time wasted commuting, easier to work round childcare etc.

But being in a workplace isn't always an arbitrary rule about bums on seats. It has to work for a business as well, in order to make a profit. I work for a small business and there needs to be a minimum number of people, in the workplace, for it to function properly (answering calls, letting clients in, running errands, seeing suppliers etc) Some people -despite knowing this - are much more reluctant to come in than others, even if it's only once a week.
In my own workplace (and I've seen several times on MN) people have moved an inconvenient distance away and then complain or want to change their hours because it's too expensive/too difficult to get to work on time. That's not really the employers fault, if the job description or location hasnt changed.

My bf just called. He went for his weekly mandatory office day. The manager asked why he was there since she didn't see anything in the calendar that would warrant for him to drive in 😅

I work for a local authority which since May elections will now be led by Reform. One of the ststements in their maifesto is to stop council employees WFH. We are an hybrid agile team meaning we visit people in the Community and the expectation is we do 2 days in the office. Since lockdown the ethos of coming into the office has changed, the same peoole do come in every week and the same people don't. Some new starters come into the office for a few weeks at induction and then aren't seen again as they just WFH. I'm not a Reform voter but interested to see what happens. It's a shame we can't have a happy compromise. The few spoil it for the rest.

I don't know if it's any consolation, but I doubt many Reform voters read the manifesto.

Organisations that still expect employees to be 'in office' when the job can be done perfectly as well from home, are living in the past.
Less congestion, better for the environment, more productive....wfh is modern working.

I don't vote Reform, however I would suggest that most voters don't actally bother to read the manifesto of the party they vote for either.

They should because they are often worth the effort for the laugh of derision

Your employer pays you to perform in the way they want you to, is the fundamental issue. You are being paid foe the service they want, not what you want. The managers get to decide what best way is to manage the business.

But it's also a matter of large vs small picture. Even in cases where individual jobs can be done at home, that's not the big picture. There may be issues with trying to create synergies in workplaces, training and mentorship, there may be people who need more direct supervision and management (whether they admit that or not.)

There's also an element of fairness, it may be undesirable for all kinds of reasons to treat employees differently and not all may be competent enough to work from home.

Yes to the management time.

It drives me nuts when I go to a lot of effort to schedule things so everyone's "at home" needs are met, and workplace needs are met, and there is some event or meeting I'd like to get done, or other job that requires a certain number of people with certain skills - and then on the one day it's supposed to happen one of the necessary people has an issue or something comes up where they need to be home after all, and the whole thing is fucked up.

Even where it's possible to demand they come in otherwise it adds a lot of stress and bad feeling.

It seems like just having everyone in as a normal thing reduces management time and effort and stress massively.

@TempestTost
Your employer pays you to perform in the way they want you to, is the fundamental issue. You are being paid foe the service they want, not what you want. The managers get to decide what best way is to manage the business.

An employer and employee relationship is based on a contract of equals. 1 has a skill and the time to perform that skill the other needs, one is willing to pay money and potentially other things for those skills and time.

It is absolutely not a feudal system although I know many who have that mindset.

If that contract doesn't include things one of those equals wants, they don't have to sign it. I've never walked into a business and made demands of things that were never offered. What I said was if they offer flexible working to some, they should offer it to all.

A small proportion of the managers make decisions, the other managers are gate keepers and responsibility holders, they have absolutely no more power to make a decision than the non-management employees. In many places this is because they don't know how to reward employees outside of offering management positions.

But it's also a matter of large vs small picture. Even in cases where individual jobs can be done at home, that's not the big picture. There may be issues with trying to create synergies in workplaces, training and mentorship,

And where did I disagree with that?

there may be people who need more direct supervision and management (whether they admit that or not.)

I started early, I was still in junior school when I first had a paid job and no it wasn't a family firm. Outside of the tiny businesses I've worked in, almost all of them have had people who do less than the minimum required.

That isn't through a lack of beady eyed managers or people WFH. They get away with it because they can, it's very hard to get rid of workers, there is a reluctance to even try. It's not a new phenomenon from the lockdowns, WFH, or anything else, some people cannot self motivate anywhere and many managers either don't have the training or the ability to motivate, many are frightened that they won't be liked if they try and get work out of people so don't try or use passive aggressive tactics that can cause low morale for everyone.

There's also an element of fairness, it may be undesirable for all kinds of reasons to treat employees differently and not all may be competent enough to work from home.

I've worked in small individual businesses to global companies as non-management and middle to senior management, on site, hybrid and remote, all of them have worked for me at different times in my life and I've no issue with people utilising any flexibility, if everyone has a fair crack to do so.

Everyone should be have the opportunity to be treated fairly which was the crux of my previous post.

You also get hiring managers who toe the company line when interviewing then have off the record chats with new hires/people they are making offers to agreeing to fewer days in the office than the company's hybrid model allows for. This is not backed up in writing and causes issues when that manager moves on. The employee doesn't have a leg to stand on, but it causes friction and bad feeling to insist they come in and of course the person may just up and leave.

I have colleagues who had no issues coming into the office 5 days a week pre Covid. Now it's as though they've been asked to walk through fire naked to come in!