Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Som pendler unngår han rushtiden ved å jobbe hjemme to dager i uken. - As a commuter he avoids rush hour by working from home two days a week.

som here means “as / in the role of”, not “who/that” as in a relative clause.
This construction som + bare noun is very common to express a role, function or capacity:
- som lærer = as a teacher
- som student = as a student
- som forelder = as a parent

So Som pendler unngår han … = As a commuter, he avoids …

Why is it “pendler” and not “en pendler” or “pendleren”?

After som in this “role” meaning, Norwegian normally uses the indefinite singular without an article:

som pendler (as a commuter)
som lege (as a doctor), not som en lege in neutral style
som leder (as a manager)

Using en pendler here (som en pendler) would sound odd, as if you’re comparing him to “a commuter” rather than just stating his role. And pendleren (the commuter) would be wrong in this structure.

So: som + bare noun = “as a(n) + noun” in English.

Why does the sentence start with “Som pendler”? Could we also say “Han unngår rushtiden …” instead?

Yes, you could say:

Han unngår rushtiden ved å jobbe hjemme to dager i uken.

That is perfectly correct Norwegian.

Starting with Som pendler is a stylistic choice and also follows the V2 word-order rule in Norwegian main clauses:

Som pendler = element in first position (an adverbial/introductory phrase)
unngår = the finite verb must come second
han = the subject comes after the verb

So we get:

Som pendler (1) unngår (2) han (3) rushtiden …

This word order puts extra emphasis on his role as a commuter: As a commuter, he avoids rush hour…

What exactly is “rushtiden”, and why is it in the definite form?

rushtid = rush hour.

It is usually masculine in Bokmål:
- indefinite: en rushtid
- definite: rushtiden
  (You may also see the feminine form rushtida.)

In the sentence we have rushtiden (the rush hour).

Norwegian often uses the definite form where English might use a bare noun:

Han hater rushtiden. = He hates rush hour.
Barn liker snøen. = Children like snow.

Here han unngår rushtiden is understood as “he avoids the rush hour (period),” which in practice means “he avoids rush hour.” Using the definite sounds natural and idiomatic.

What does “ved å jobbe” mean, and how is it different from “for å jobbe”?

ved å + infinitive means “by doing X” (method / means).
- ved å jobbe hjemme = by working at home
for å + infinitive means “in order to do X” (purpose / goal).
- for å unngå rushtiden, jobber han hjemme = in order to avoid rush hour, he works from home

So in your sentence:

… unngår han rushtiden ved å jobbe hjemme …
= he avoids rush hour by working from home …

You cannot just replace ved å with for å here without changing the structure and meaning.

Can I use “arbeide” instead of “jobbe”? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can say:

… ved å arbeide hjemme to dager i uken.

The difference:

jobbe – very common in everyday speech; neutral and slightly informal.
arbeide – a bit more formal/literary, but also completely correct and common in writing.

In this sentence, both are fine. In casual spoken Norwegian, jobbe is more typical:

Jeg jobber hjemme i dag.

Why is it “hjemme” and not “hjem” here?

Norwegian distinguishes movement vs location:

hjem = (to) home, used with movement:
- dra hjem = go home
- komme hjem = come home
- reise hjem = travel home
hjemme = at home, used for location / state:
- være hjemme = be at home
- jobbe hjemme = work at home
- sitte hjemme = sit at home

In your sentence, he is working at home, so it is a location, and therefore hjemme is correct:

… ved å jobbe hjemme … = by working at home

What does “to dager i uken” mean, and are there other common ways to say this?

to dager i uken = two days a week (literally: two days in the week).

Other common variants:

to dager i uka – same meaning, more colloquial (using uka instead of uken).
to dager hver uke – two days every week (slightly more explicit).
to dager per uke – two days per week (more formal/technical, e.g. in official texts).

All of these can be understood as a regular weekly pattern. In everyday speech, to dager i uka is probably the most natural.

Why is it “i uken” and not “om uken” or something else?

For recurring frequency, Norwegian typically uses i:

to ganger i måneden = two times a month
en gang i året = once a year
to dager i uken = two days a week

om is used more for “in (time)” or “after (time)”:

om en uke = in a week / one week from now
om to timer = in two hours

So for the meaning “per week / a week,” i uken is the normal choice.

If I want to negate it, where does “ikke” go in this sentence?

In a neutral main clause, ikke usually comes after the finite verb and before the object:

Som pendler unngår han ikke rushtiden ved å jobbe hjemme to dager i uken.
= As a commuter, he does not avoid rush hour by working from home two days a week.

Basic pattern:

[fronted element] + verb + subject + ikke + rest
Som pendler
- unngår
  - han
    - ikke
      - rushtiden …

If you drop Som pendler, you get:

Han unngår ikke rushtiden ved å jobbe hjemme to dager i uken.

Could “han” be replaced with a different pronoun, for example if the commuter is female or if I want to be gender‑neutral?

Yes:

For a woman: hun
- Som pendler unngår hun rushtiden ved å jobbe hjemme to dager i uken.
For a group: de
- Som pendlere unngår de rushtiden ved å jobbe hjemme to dager i uken.
For gender‑neutral singular, some speakers use hen, but it is still less common and somewhat stylistically marked:
- Som pendler unngår hen rushtiden ved å jobbe hjemme to dager i uken.

In standard, neutral Bokmål today, han (he) and hun (she) are still the most typical choices for singular people.