> I think you would have a hard time getting a valid candidate from Louisville, MO, to take a ~5 hours flight to LA, for a job that was supposed to be remote.

I've done it many times, pre-COVID. I live in a small town (<25k) in the South and have been working remotely for ~10 years. In that time I've gone through four rounds of interviews. The first three were pre-COVID, and they all included at least a "half day" of on-site interviews, most of which were in LA or SF. The most recent round was about eighteen months ago and didn't include any travel.

> Maybe the reason the candidate is looking for a remote job, is they don't have to travel?

This is not my experience. In my personal network of remote workers we're pretty uniformly working remotely because we don't want to move to where the companies are, not because we are entirely opposed to traveling. Each person has their own expectations of course, but I see traveling for less than a week per quarter as entirely acceptable.

> I've done it many times, pre-COVID.

But we're not pre-covid. Before covid I worked remote because it allowed me access to a larger job market without having to relocate, but I didn't mind occasional travel. Now that we're dealing with covid, there's no way you'd get me on a plane or in an office for a job interview. My health is worth far more than any particular job.

That’s fair, but I’d argue those concerns are separate from the expectation of whether or not it’s reasonable to conduct an interview for a remote position on-site.

For most remote jobs I've had there was still an expectation of some travel, usually 1-2 on or off-site visits per year. Further, many Big Name companies will ask that you travel out as a part of the interview process in the first place, remote or not. So long as there is no undue burden out-of-the-gate, i.e. you pay and or we reimburse, it's not particularly untoward.

Still, that wouldn't solve for the "My laptop doesn't have a camera" problem for the early phases of the interview. You would need to save face / voice samples to cross-reference at various stages of the pipeline to watch for the changeling.

I donno. There is a difference between "I want to work fully remote but don't mind coming in for a day or so every once in a while if its fully paid for" vs "I never want to meet you in person". I personally would never hire the 2nd type of candidate.

Some of the best engineers that I've ever worked with have been quiet types who don't particularly want "work mates".

They work fine with people, can parse small talk and bring a positive attitude, etc. But they were out like a shot when the workday was over, and they would never dream of attending a company-sponsored teambuilding event. If they were hired for a 100% remote job, they would expect to never see a coworker in person, and consider it a perk.

Some people just don't want to mix their personal and professional lives. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with it but it probably excludes them from a lot of roles. I’ve been essentially fully remote for years but I still traveled a quarter to a third of the time pre-Covid.

I wouldn’t assume remote meant absolutely zero travel unless that was spelled out.

I would absolutely assume that "remote" means "absolutely zero travel" unless that was spelled out.

Remote means you don't need me physically present at a particular place (outside of knowing my location for tax purposes). It's pretty clear in the word "remote". If that's not always 100% the case, I would expect those expectations to me made clear during the hiring process, not after I've already come aboard.

Do you really think it would be unreasonable for someone to balk if you hired them for a remote role but then asked them to fly somewhere quarterly after they were onboarded?

Yes. I would think it unreasonable. I know a ton of remote people including myself and we all travel quite a bit. Now a job with 25% travel should certainly state that in the job description but if zero travel is non-negotiable you need to specify that up front—and don’t be surprised if you run into issues if managers change.

You are not in a role position if you are required to travel. It isn't as common as you think.

Remote means you are not assigned to an office period. It says nothing about whether you never/rarely travel or travel essentially 100% of the time eg many consultants.

Obviously people should take positions that align with their preferences however. Just be sure to specify upfront and be prepared to move if circumstances change.

I’ve been involved in hiring at multiple companies with fully remote positions, and all expected travel to a team building offsite at frequencies around once every 6-12 months. From everyone I have talked to at other companies too that is a standard expectation, and for very good reasons - humans work so much better as a team (communication, empathy, charity, etc) with just that small amount of face time.

I've worked exclusively remotely for the past seven years and a surprising number of companies I've worked for and interviewed for "strongly encouraged" on-site meet ups at difference frequencies (quarterly, bi annually, annually).

I never attended any meet ups. I felt guilty about it but like you're saying here, I signed up to work remotely, not in an office ever.

That's fair, I guess sometimes people have different definitions of "100%".

There's no problem with preferring not to hang out at work, there is a huge problem with being unwilling to help your employer solve a huge trust issue in the engineering team. Those engineers are 100% toxic to the business goals that pay their salaries and should be let go immediately if they truly would never dream of attending a physical meeting as you describe.

Someone who won't help you avoid fraud might as well be pushing you into it.

I was the first type of person before covid, but now I'm entirely the second type of candidate. Remote work has gone from being a nice option to have access to a larger job market into an absolute necessity if you want to avoid covid.

You are not hiring remotely if you require coming in every so often. You have a hybrid workplace.

Not really if you are expected to come in person once for the final interview and then max of 1 or 2 weeks within the whole year (fully paid by the company). Hybrid is when you have people required to come in at least 1-2 times every week and expectation is that you cannot live far away from the office.

I still see some companies posting "remote" positions and yet have mandatory 1-2 week bonding exercises per year and the language used makes it sound like a a job perk. Immediate back button for me.

Yeah, describing it as a perk always makes me gag. Why would I be attracted to working remotely AND simultaneously want to have my life upended every 3-6 months to travel?

A-grade melodrama here. It's a flight once a year that requires you to pack your bag and get on a plane. Not some gargantuan event that "upends your life"

You really don't know my life. Besides a full time job I am a caretaker for a disabled person in addition to having a family. It's extremely stressful to arrange for me to be away.

Put it on a Friday, let them stay the weekend, and pay all the expenses. My company does that for a less glamorous location than LA and I loved it. It is essentially a vacation, and if you are deciding to relocate, a good opportunity to explore potential homes/neighborhoods.

But I like exploring new places. I’m not sure how popular all expenses paid weekend vacations are.

The very reason I want remote is to stay around my family, this seems to be made to appeal to the young and/or unattached.

I love my family, but that doesn't mean I would object to a weekend away.

Having worked in business travel tech, and run a LOT of customer interviews, travelers have very different views on it. Some love it, some hate it, some are in it for the points or for the tourism.

The only thing business travelers have in common is that they all think everyone views business travel just like they do.

I don't think it's that unreasonable if the employer is covering the cost of the flight and paying for the person's time.

What if the employer came to meet you instead?

If most of the team is in LA, yes, I'd expect the candidate to travel for an interview. Of course, if everyone is distributed anyway, then it doesn't really make sense to fly them to a specific location.

really? At my company, full time WFH still expects a couple trips a year to meet up with the team.

Barring unusual circumstances, e.g. disabilities, I will never travel at all is probably disqualifying for a lot of roles.

Yeah, refusing to fly even for a final interview/on boarding is a very hard line.

Even with disabilities, inability to meet the job description is a legally valid reason to discriminate.

If the job itself doesn’t require travel such as to meet with customers I’m at least sympathetic to hopping on a plane being a higher bar for some than for others.

Absolutely, we would not hire someone with such a hard line, and we hire a lot of remote. There’s a good reason… a tiny tiny amount of in person time every year or so pays outsized dividends in team productivity

Many people are afraid to fly and/or have motion sickness on long road trips. If remote roles require travel and crossing borders working locally becomes more appealing.

I would think if someone doesn’t want to travel they could find some low to mid level coding position where no one travels outside a local office. That would make the most sense to me.

I've flown out-of-state twice for interviews for jobs that were local to me. It was just where they were better set up to interview.

Why? They'd travel on company dime in company time. A cheap holiday if you ask me!