In the age of hybrid offices and remote work, what counts as a reasonable commute anymore? That’s the question at the heart of a now-viral Reddit post, where a job applicant shared his frustrating experience of being rejected after his first-ever in-person interview—allegedly for living “too far.” Despite travelling nearly two hours in heavy rain, the candidate claims his location became the main focus during the discussion, sidelining his work and commitment.According to the post, the interview was off to a rocky start. The HR executive—who had scheduled the meeting—seemed unaware of it upon his arrival. This, he noted, was the first red flag. The conversation quickly shifted to his commute time, even though she had earlier reassured him it wouldn’t be a problem. By the end of the interview, he was told he wasn’t a good fit for their “fast-paced, collaborative culture,” with concerns about whether the distance would affect his productivity.
What irked him further was the implication that previous hires from his city had quit due to long commutes. He questioned whether the real reason was poor work culture, especially after the HR mentioned internal bickering and a lack of space for “weaklings.” He also felt that his design assignment—on branding and advertising—was likely never reviewed.
In the post and its comments, he revealed he doesn’t drive and depends on the train, which is the most convenient option in his city. “Thousands commute like this daily,” he wrote. “So exhaustion from travel shouldn’t be a concern.” While disheartened, the candidate said he was relieved not to be part of a workplace that seemed to flag such early red flags.Several commenters weighed in with mixed views. While some felt it was valid for companies to question long commutes, they criticised the employer for not addressing this concern earlier in the process. Others suggested that job seekers should simply claim they plan to relocate if hired, and decide later based on the offer. Some believed a daily commute of 1.5–2 hours is unreasonable for a full-time office job, especially post-pandemic. As layoffs increase and hybrid work expectations shift, longer commutes could quietly become a new barrier. Many advised the candidate to look for roles closer to home or fully remote options.For this candidate, though, the experience was bittersweet. He summed it up best: “Everyone starts somewhere. But that doesn’t mean we can’t spot red flags or stand up for ourselves.”
What irked him further was the implication that previous hires from his city had quit due to long commutes. He questioned whether the real reason was poor work culture, especially after the HR mentioned internal bickering and a lack of space for “weaklings.” He also felt that his design assignment—on branding and advertising—was likely never reviewed.
In the post and its comments, he revealed he doesn’t drive and depends on the train, which is the most convenient option in his city. “Thousands commute like this daily,” he wrote. “So exhaustion from travel shouldn’t be a concern.” While disheartened, the candidate said he was relieved not to be part of a workplace that seemed to flag such early red flags.Several commenters weighed in with mixed views. While some felt it was valid for companies to question long commutes, they criticised the employer for not addressing this concern earlier in the process. Others suggested that job seekers should simply claim they plan to relocate if hired, and decide later based on the offer. Some believed a daily commute of 1.5–2 hours is unreasonable for a full-time office job, especially post-pandemic. As layoffs increase and hybrid work expectations shift, longer commutes could quietly become a new barrier. Many advised the candidate to look for roles closer to home or fully remote options.For this candidate, though, the experience was bittersweet. He summed it up best: “Everyone starts somewhere. But that doesn’t mean we can’t spot red flags or stand up for ourselves.”
