First-In, First-Hired: Yay or Nay?

Job interviews have been going on since, well, forever. I suppose when feudal lords ruled the lands, you got the job of being a peasant by not dying, but since then, it’s involved a job interview.

And, it must be time for a change. Some companies are starting a first to apply, first to be hired program, something that’s also referred to as open hiring. I don’t know what to think.

Greystone Bakery started this practice in its distribution center in North Carolina by asking job candidates only three questions: “Are you authorized to work in the U.S.? Can you stand for up to eight hours? And can you lift over 50 pounds?”

The results? Turnover dropped by 60 percent. That’s not a typo. 60 percent reduction in turnover. What started out as a thing to help people, turned into huge cost-savings for the company. Greyston’s CEO said, “At the heart of it, Greyston’s mission is to impact people facing barriers to employment,” which explains the program. But, they benefit from the reduction in turnover.

To keep reading, click here: First-In, First-Hired: Yay or Nay?

Related Posts

6 thoughts on “First-In, First-Hired: Yay or Nay?

  1. At the Amazon distribution center in Tennessee they have done the same thing, I assume due to extremely low unemployment rate in the area. I do not have their turnover data. Having worked in HR in manufacturing for 20 years, the companies I worked for tried so many things to reduce turnover, I think this is worth a shot.

  2. Dear Evil —

    This rates as an “All-time Best” article! Relevant, thought-provoking, and if you (or me, or anyone else) has a definite, effective, reliable answer to how to successfully hire and be hired, well, welcome to the world of the mega-mega-mega-rich (and wasn’t computerization, AI, ATS, and all the rest supposed to make all this an easy, efficient, and enjoyable experience?).

    You say, “Job interviews alone won’t guarantee a perfect employee.” Can’t we all wish that employers would finally stop looking for purple squirrels?

    Related to this, however, is the now ubiquitous ability of job seekers to apply for multiplied tens of jobs a day and to “blast” their resumes to literally hundreds if not thousands of job advertisements at the single click of a button. Can’t we all wish that this destructive practice would just stop already?

    In the words of Kurtz … “The horror! The horror!”

  3. 60% reduction in turnover? Why on earth WOULDN’T companies give it a shot, at least for certain role? That would add up to some staggering savings, especially in larger organizations.

  4. Anything that reduces the turnover of employees is worth trying, even if you twig it to match your needs. An employer that prefers high turnover in their employees is not a job but a mere stepping stone to another job.

  5. My wife recently completed the hiring-firing season for a local retailer… She says that a lower-than-competitive pay scale and known lack of drug testing for most positions leads to higher (hire?) turnover… And few attempts by her at permanent retention at end-of-season.

    Would simplified hiring help or hinder? Hmm. Or would a simple consistent 3-strikes policy be better? Double-hmm.

  6. And frankly, no one cares what your biggest weakness is, as long as it’s not showing up late to work.

    Oh, I think saying I am “outspoken” when asked about my weaknesses was not a good idea at all. Women are not supposed to be outspoken. I thought it was OK to say to another woman at a woman-founded and woman-run company, but in retrospect, it was not my wisest decision.

Comments are closed.

Are you looking for a new HR job? Or are you trying to hire a new HR person? Either way, hop on over to Evil HR Jobs, and you'll find what you're looking for.