Indeed - there are extreme limitations of interviews & other evaluations pre-hire. They'll rank some good candidates "below the hire line", and some charismatic

Indeed - there are extreme limitations of interviews & other evaluations pre-hire. They'll rank some good candidates "below the hire line", and some charismatic bad candidates, who temporarily present well, as hires. Given that, a policy of "we're going to hire X% more people than we need, but fire fast" could be seen as a generous, progressive, error-correcting process. It's better than leaving those people who interview poorly always just short of the real, compensated, supervised employment situations where they could prove themselves. The grounds for judging the practice should be based on whether it's done honestly. Is the practice, and actual attrition-rates/risk-of-short-tenure, explained up-front? Are hires paid for all hours worked? Do those fired receive clear feedback for why they're not continuing?