Attrition entails significant costs of hiring, lost productivity, and lost know-how, which drive ML research on employee attrition prediction. Nevertheless, most existing work offers just one discriminatory statistic on one IBM HR Analytics attrition prediction synthetic split, without providing much guidance, and hardly addresses cost, interpretability, dynamics over time, robustness to new data, and fairness altogether. In contrast, this paper proposes a holistic decision-oriented framework and a new targeting policy contributing to attrition analysis in the following six dimensions: (i) cost-sensitive stacked ensemble (LightGBM, CatBoost, logistic regression) with repeated cross-validation, confidence intervals, and expected net savings metric rooted in retention economics; calibration proves indispensable for any cost-sensitive applications; (ii) post hoc explainability based on SHAP(SHapley Additive exPlanations) explanations together with DiCE (Diverse Counterfactual Explanations)counterfactual recourse; (iii) survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier estimator, Cox proportional hazards model) applied to a time-to-event dataset of turnover as another base-classification target; (iv) uplift modeling using three kinds of learners (S-, T-, and X-); (v) Fairness-Aware Cost-Sensitive Retention Targeting policy, FACS-RT, integrating uplift, cost, and fairness optimization in one algorithm and constructing value-fairness Pareto frontier; and (vi) leave-one-department-out resampling and auditing with respect to group fairness criterion. For the IBM dataset (n = 1,470), our approach yields an average AUC of 0.83 with 95% confidence interval (0.79–0.89) with cross-validation, statistically equivalent to a strong logistic regression baseline (paired-bootstrap test p = 0.37), and isotonic calibration brings ECE down to 0.04. For the turnover dataset (n = 1,129), our method achieves AUC 0.72 and Cox concordance 0.66. There is a partial agreement between risk- and uplift-based ranking orders of 27%. FACS-RT retains 83% of expected maximum value while decreasing gender disparity of selection rates by 92% (0.053 → 0.004).