While I think you're probably right about their motivation, I think a lot of companies seem to apply the "overqualified" classification in stupid scenarios. Fo

While I think you're probably right about their motivation, I think a lot of companies seem to apply the "overqualified" classification in stupid scenarios. For example, this is a job for a seasonal door greeter at retail, by definition it is temporary. Even if it wasn't meant to be temporary, is someone who is "overqualified" really more of a statistically significant "flight risk" than some high school kid, an elderly retiree, or someone who somehow has made a career of being a seasonal door greeter? I suspect all classes of potential hires would be very nearly equally incredibly unreliable in the long-term for a job of this ilk, if you actually hired from all groups and did a study on job longevity.