I’ve been looking for a new job as a software developer. The huge majority of job listings I see in my area are hybrid or remote. I just had an introductory phone call with Vizio (which didn’t specify the location type in the job listing). The recruiter told me that the job was fully on-site, which I told her was a deal breaker for me.
It makes me wonder how many other people back out after hearing that the job is on-site. And it makes me wonder why this wasn’t specified in the job description. I assume most people only want hybrid or remote jobs these days, right?
Anyways I was just wondering how many of you guys apply for on-site IT jobs? Hybrid is so much better, I don’t know why people would apply for on-site jobs unless they have no other options.
There is one reason I think onsite works, and that’s for relocation.
If you are from the US and you want to move to the UK, how do you intend to move via work if your work is remote?
I love remote work, but I’ve not heard a rebuttal for this other than “don’t let foreigners move here” or “let’s let people move based on their level of education”.
It’s entirely possible that people can work remote but still relocate to an area where the company has a presence. For example, they may not be set up to pay taxes in a certain jurisdiction. For example, my company could not hire Canadian residents until we had a legal entity in Canada. Thankfully we bought a cabadieb firm.
Why would a company decide to grant you a working visa when you will primarily be remote? Furthermore, why would the government grant you a visa when you could, in theory, work from your own country?
As I said, they may not have support to pay or provide benefits in the area where they live. So perhaps you need to move to a different state or country but can still work remote. E.g. Maybe I take a remote job with a company in the UK but I decide to live in Glasgow instead of London.