Can an employer dictate where you live?

Aryndeneth

Job description states anyone gaining employment with this company must move to live in prescribed area with a few miles radius of the company offices. There is no flexibility on this and even a person living just a couple of miles outside that boundary would be required to relocate.

Reason given is they deal with confidential/vital data and need staff close at hand in case of emergency such as IT systems going down. While this could be plausible I don't see how they can also apply the same criteria to all staff (you don't need your finance or analyst staff to come in and fix the servers)

I know companies can set any (legal) recruitment criteria they want to but in this case the reason seems a bit thin. Any thoughts on this? I'm just curious as I've not seen such a requirement on an advert before.

Undervalued

Aryndeneth wrote: »

Job description states anyone gaining employment with this company must move to live in prescribed area with a few miles radius of the company offices. There is no flexibility on this and even a person living just a couple of miles outside that boundary would be required to relocate.

Reason given is they deal with confidential/vital data and need staff close at hand in case of emergency such as IT systems going down. While this could be plausible I don't see how they can also apply the same criteria to all staff (you don't need your finance or analyst staff to come in and fix the servers)

I know companies can set any (legal) recruitment criteria they want to but in this case the reason seems a bit thin. Any thoughts on this? I'm just curious as I've not seen such a requirement on an advert before.

Yes, perfectly lawful.

An employer can discriminate in any way they like except for the handful of reasons prohibited by law (e.g race, sex, religion etc).

The largest employer near me has such a rule although they do waive it for a handful of "highly desirable" staff. Again perfectly lawful.

Aryndeneth

I know it's lawful. I'm just curious as to why they have this requirement for what seems to be a not very strong reason. Not accusing them of being discriminatory in any way or saying they couldn't/shouldn't do it, just wondering why such a very specific criteria is needed.

getmore4less

Read the contractual term very carefully for looholes.

The would need to define what they mean by "live"

It would have to define distance, time, days, how far you can go when on days off, sick, on holidays. chances of it being water tight is unlikely.

Also won't save your job if you find workarounds.

Aryndeneth

getmore4less wrote: »

Read the contractual term very carefully for looholes.

The would need to define what they mean by "live"

It would have to define distance, time, days, how far you can go when on days off, sick, on holidays. chances of it being water tight is unlikely.

Also won't save your job if you find workarounds.

Luckily, it's not me applying but I am working with some people it's being advertised too so handy to have some insights into why it might be a requirement as I'm sure they'll ask. Thanks for the pointers on other areas to consider asking about.

TBagpuss

It may be that they have simply had problems in the past with employees living further away and having problems with timekeeping, not coming in in bad weather, etc. Or that they feel that longer commutes mean staff are tired and less efficient.

They may like to promote themselves as supporting the local community and keeping jobs local (obviously it doesn't precisely do that if people are relocating in, but I suppose you could argue that it results in more people living and working within the community) or as being eco-friendly and being able to boast that their staff don't commute more than 5 miles.

I would have thought that a better way forward might be to make it clear to anyone who is likely to be on call that they must be no more than x minutes travel time from the office while on call.

InsideInsurance

Presumably you are seeing this in a job advert rather than actually reading your own contract of employment with them?

If its a job ad, how do you know it applies to all staff and not just those with emergency type duties?

I've seen silly things being put in ads when they have an internal candidate they want to give the job to but company policy requires all jobs to be advertised so they skew the advert to favour their internal candidate to reduce the effort they need to go through

Aryndeneth

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Presumably you are seeing this in a job advert rather than actually reading your own contract of employment with them?

If its a job ad, how do you know it applies to all staff and not just those with emergency type duties?

I've seen silly things being put in ads when they have an internal candidate they want to give the job to but company policy requires all jobs to be advertised so they skew the advert to favour their internal candidate to reduce the effort they need to go through

Yes, it's in the ad and in the further particulars for the role. I'm not applying for it but I will be supporting people who are so I'm trying to find out a bit more about the requirements.

I know it's a requirement for all staff because I phoned the company and asked them. They said the requirement applied to all staff, no flexibility as to being even a mile or two outside the given zone. I asked outright why, if the reason is to do with IT emergencies, this applies to all staff i.e. finance and related (which is what the advertised role is) who you wouldn't normally expect to be called on in such a situation, they simply said that it's just how it is and it applies to all staff.

They've been very open about this requirement and, I mentioned earlier, I certainly don't think they're doing anything wrong. I have just never seen such a requirement before and was interested to see if anyone else had and if it was maybe common in roles/sectors I'm not aware of.

Nebulous2

I haven't come across it before, but I think I like it.

I've often thought about the wastefulness of commuting and idly wondered why two people who pass each other every day on the way to work can't just change houses!

Tiddlywinks

They aren't asking staff to move, they are only recruiting within a certain radius... there's a difference.

I can see their point of view.the further away staff live, the more chance of disruptions such as weather, traffic etc

KiKi

If there's no genuine job requirement, I don't see the need for it, I don't like it - and I actually think it leaves the organisation less able to compete for the best people.

I live in Brighton, and work in London. I have to walk to the station, take three trains, and then walk again the other end; it's a 1h 40m commute in the morning. It's my problem to get myself to work on time, and as long as I do my job well, it's not my company's business where I live. If they had made me work within a few miles I a) couldn't have afforded it and b) wouldn't have applied, as I like where I live, thank you! It's a pain in the neck sometimes, but that's my choice, and I have to suffer it when the trains are up the creek.

I work with 9 other people who commute from Brighton, and also people who commute from Manchester, Leicester and Bristol, so I'm certainly not the farthest away!