Company did a bait and switch at offer stage

[Soootired23]

I've been interviewing for a company for the past 3 weeks. I really like their product and have drunk the look aid about who they are etc...

I did see that the American counterpart of the role I've been interviewing for was hybrid, but they never published the British version of it and during the interview process a) my location was never mentioned as an issue and b) HR person even said they were fully remote in the UK. Even their website says they're remote in general (but again this role in the US says it's hybrid).

I'm basically at offer stage, and then the HM asks if I've ever considered moving more "centrally" which I replied that yes I will. (And it's 100% true) but not imminently.

Then they came back with a standard, "we're trying to build teams around our offices"...

My hunch is that they'll either make it a condition (with a deadline) or they won't but it will regularly come up.

So AIBU to be disheartened about this? I really thought this would put and end to my unemployment.

I've done both, and they both cost about the same and neither is more time efficient.

If anything the train is the better option because I can semi work.

I don't think its deliberate bait and switch. I think you have both not been clear whether accidentally or deliberately....they asked you about moving and you said a no ifs and buts "yes" They may heve been thinking it might be an advantage to them if you weren't expecting to be remote only...... time to clear up misunderstandings I think.

At that salary level your job will be more around ‘delivering your targets’ rather than showing face for specific number of days? Sure, they might start wanting people in offices but if you’ve proven yourself there will be flexibility to decide how you work/ where you are on a given day!
if it’s a good role and right pay, I’d not overthink location. Assume you have to go into office 3-4 times a month anyway and see if the offer is still good. If there is room, negotiate the 10k more that you want, if it doesn’t pan out then take the offer anyway.
And don’t forget, whatever you ‘really’ want - you start with asking for double.

the company I work for has several employees living in Edinburgh or Glasgow and flying is definitely cheaper snd more efficient for them to get to London the once a month or so that we all meet up in London. I occasionally have to go up to Dundee as have a client there and I can do it in a day flying, no chance by train. I also fly to Newquay for a client in Cornwall and thats way cheaper than the train as long as you book in advance.

Just be very clear with your expectations.

it is not unreasonable to ask for fully remote with 1/2 day a month in the office at their expense. you do need the contract to specify remote so that in the event they want more days then it’s a discussion rather than an order

but I think you understand this, and perhaps just need reassurance to hold your ground: finding good senior people is tough, they’ve invested a lot in the process, they want you, they’ve not been dishonest. Tell them what you want.

As an aside, i think the fact that air travel is often cheaper in this country is disgusting form an environmental point of view. Id rather travel by train but the costs are extortionate.

Up until yesterday (and after investing around 30 hours into a presentation that received stellar feedback), and meeting the CEO, it had been explicitly said that it was a remote role.

I think there has been some misalignment on their end, but I have the feeling they'll try to meet me in the middle.

I hate companies who do that.

I live 2 hours from London (each way) and when I interviewed for my current job they said the entire team was working remotely and that there was only a need to attend quarterly staff meetings.

As soon as I passed my 6 month probation I was asked to come in once a month, then two weeks later they said it should be once a week which I absolutely refused to do.

With an average salary (this is a charity) and the fact that the job is part time it would make no financial sense for me to commute that often. The remote working was the one reason I took that job...

I also lost all trust in the organisation after that.

So I would never take a job with a company that is not clear on office attendance and I would want everything to be clearly written in my contract from the start.

did the HR person say currently or right now we are fully remote in the UK? I cannot see any reason why they would waste their time and resource trying to con you into accepting a job. Maybe you aren't the only candidate and they are wanting to choose between several equally good options?

@Soootired23 agreeing to travel isn’t necessarily about going to the office regularly. I have a colleague who lives a long way from the office. But training customers is oart of her role so she travels a lot. But probably once a year to the office. If they asked if you mind travelling then I’d be asking questions about exactly what they mean.

HR person said "all UK employees are remote" . Somewhere on their website even confirms this. Although once you look at the current vacancies they all clearly state they're hybrid.

They explicitly said it's about meeting customers. Which I replied with a genuine "I love it!" Because I actually do.

It’s sounds as if they are currently remote but the company a looking to set up a ‘base’ somewhere and want/ hope that employees will be willing to come in on a regular basis. That could be x days per week/month. They want you to be flexible without stating exactly how.

if they can’t be clear, I’d take the role and see how things go. If over time the ask becomes unreasonable/untenable you can leave. You’ll have the experience and pay platform to have a good jump.

That's what it sounds like, but somebody on Glassdoor complained about the same (bait and switch).

For clarification, this job is on the lower end of similar roles that I can easily get an interview for.

The £140k role is at a completely different company. Same line of work, but people manager.

on that salary I’d take the hit and book a premier inn or similar in suburbs, I’ve just booked a few nights at £120 short notice so not horrendous.

£60k? Because that's how much it pays.

in that case I would feel able to say I expect the contract to reflect there would be travel for the job but clarify that there is no requirement to attend the office except by agreement.

I reckon they'll either keep it super vague or with a timeline, who knows!

I'm not the only one this has happened to, different department, but still a bit of a red flag.

Oh, ok. At the £150k I was going to say you should be able to make it work it’s some sort of monthly commute and stay over a few days. But not for 60, no. I guess you see what they offer and make your boundaries very clear. Why is it you are interviewing so far below your potential? It can be difficult to get back up if you take that big a drop

The £150k job is more that I got lucky with the HM/interview process.

However, according to ChatGPT, that's exactly the type of role I should be going for, and maybe I should stop listening to the negative people around me.

So that's my new strategy. For my next batch, I'll aim as high as I can, and see what happens.

If Senior management are thinking that they will follow suit in the U.K. and follow US requirements in the next year or so - then they possibly won’t hire you if you’re not able to move and be in the office twice a week for another 3 years (or until your DD is in further Ed)

However if they’re not planning to follow US lead or it really is a 3 - 5 year strategic plan to be more office based - and they’re happy with twice a month in the office for now max - hopefully it will work out and they will offer you @Soootired23

in that case, why not go for other posts?

Unfortunately, I think I have more evidence against remote work than not.

So it's really down to them liking me enough to make an exception (for now).