Rigorous interviews will increase the number of false negatives, but decrease the number of false positives. I think your wording doesn't make that clear.
When the cost of a false positive is high, e.g. a bad employee can be very expensive in terms of time and money before he is identified and fired if he is fired at all, then it is worth the cost of a few more false negatives to be more sure that you aren't getting false positives.
It seems that very often someone who is the victim of being a false negative will rail against the system and claim it is unfair. If you can get them to look at it from the other side they will often agree the practice is quite reasonable.
When the cost of a false positive is high, e.g. a bad employee can be very expensive in terms of time and money before he is identified and fired if he is fired at all, then it is worth the cost of a few more false negatives to be more sure that you aren't getting false positives.
It seems that very often someone who is the victim of being a false negative will rail against the system and claim it is unfair. If you can get them to look at it from the other side they will often agree the practice is quite reasonable.