Skip to comments.Kgb USA eliminating hundreds of jobs in San Antonio (225 jobs)
Posted on 07/18/2014 7:44:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Kgb USA Inc. has informed the Texas Workforce Commission that it plans to carry out a mass layoff in San Antonio. The call center company, which does business as Conduit Global, expects to eliminate 225 positions by Aug. 31.
Conduit Global officials say the layoffs are a result of an unexpected cancellation of services by one of the companys clients.
Conduit Global notes in a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) letter filed with the Texas Workforce Commission that it is hopeful the layoffs can be minimized by the potential award of a large customer care contract.
If a contract with the unnamed client is executed, Conduit Global expects it can keep the companys San Antonio workforce similar to its current size.
It is not clear how many people are currently employed by the San Antonio call center, which opened in 1999. According to a previous San Antonio Business Journal report, the company employed about 400 personnel in 2011.
Conduit closed a call center in Moore OK a few months ago. I heard it was a perfectly awful place to work. It had been their for at least 20 yea
it appears to be a group that has a series of directory assistance companies
who KNEW the KGB had offices in Texas?
A job is a job. Would you rather all the people in “substandard” jobs live on our tax money and wallow around at home? What do they learn from that?
number of people collecting unemployment /. total number of citizens = current unemployment rate
I realize this is bs, as kids and old folks shouldn’t be counted in the total employable. yet, that’s what we have now
to get the actual unemployment rate:
number of people collecting unemployment / number of people filing w-2s
this won’t account for the number of people no longer working or those not filing, but it’d be closer then the numbers they’re reporting
I don’t disagree with you. It had a permanent help wanted sign outfront and people could work there while looking for more permanent employment.
You seemed to sort of thunder your reply back to me. Not sure why.
It’s not you. I get a lot of pushback on layoff articles about call centers, fast food, Wal-Mart and the like which go “well good for them, those were $#*++y jobs anyhow” and the like. Not everybody can make seven figures at hedge funds, etc. To quote Judge Smails “the world needs ditch diggers, too.”
I would rather dig sewer lines than work at a call center. But you are correct that real work, the kind of work that gets hands dirty is not respected. But i know a lot of rich plumbers.
I’ve worked at call centers, mostly setting appointments for sales people. It was heated & air conditioned, inside, sitting down with a drink and a snack within reach and I merely had to make phone calls. At some I actually made better than average money. Every job, except for slavery, is what you make of it.
“But i know a lot of rich plumbers.”
Ok I wouldnt say I’m rich but did very well mainly because it’s hard work and few people are willing to do it
Besides I’d raher have poo on my shoe than a phone in my ear listening to someone about as enjoyable as what used to get onmy shoe
And they’ll never outsource plumbing work
In prison, you get time off for good behavior. At work, you get rewarded for good behavior with more work.
In prison, a guard locks and unlocks all the doors for you. At work, you have to carry around a security card and open all of the doors yourself.
In prison, you spend the majority of your time in an 8-by-10 cell. At work, you spend most of your time in a 6-by-8 cubicle.
In prison, you get three square meals a day. At work, you only get a break for one meal and you have to pay for it.
In prison, you usually get your own toilet. At work, you have to share.
In prison, your friends and family are allowed to visit. At work, you cant speak to your family or friends because itll distract everyone else.
In prison, all expenses are paid by taxpayers with little work required. At work, you have to pay expenses just to get to work, and once youre there, they deduct taxes from your salary to pay for prisons.
In prison, you spend most of your time looking through bars from inside wanting to get out. At work, you spend most of your time wanting to get out and go inside bars.
Finally, in prison, there are wardens who are notoriously sadistic. At work, theyre called supervisors.
during the election... both candidates went on about the 8% unemployment and how 25m people were out of work
we have 132m people filing taxes... at best, that’s 25m / 132m or 19%
the only way you get to 8% is if you use the total population:
25m / 310m == 8.06%
I’m pretty sure kids and the elderly are in that 310m...
just the facts
The unemployment rate numbers come from the government BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). All the information that follows is available at the BLS website (bls.gov), if you care to look.
They define the unemployment rate as “the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force”.
They define the labor force as “the sum of employed and unemployed persons”.
They define “not in the labor force” as “persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.”
The BLS does not provide employment statistics for people under 16 years of age. That indicates that they do not consider children to be part of the labor force.
The devil is in the details, as you can see in this statement:
“Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed. Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.”
People who have stopped looking for work are not considered to be unemployed, and they are obviously not employed. So, they are removed from the labor force and thus do not appear in the unemployment rate number as released periodically by the BLS, and it is that bogus number that is used by the Administration to “prove” that they have fixed the economy.
sounds great... you’ve parroted their bs very well.
so, are you saying that the 25m people that are unemployed and made up that 8% unemployment rate are just 8% of the total work force?
if what you posted were true, then it’d have to be.
so tell me... how many people are in the workforce if 25m is 8% of them?
how many people are in the country?
The 8% number is coming from the BLS. I’m not saying that number isn’t BS, because it is.
But to understand why that number is BS, you have to understand how they come up with that number.
It’s not “parroting” to cite the definitions that underlie statistics.
It’s obvious that your “28 million” unemployed number isn’t the same number that the BLS used to derive the 8% unemployment rate number.
The 28 million number, whatever its source, would have to be based on a much broader definition of “unemployed” than the one that the BLS used.
Apples and oranges.
It has been pointed out many times here (and it is clearly stated in the BLS’ definitions) that when someone gives up on looking for work, they are no longer considered to be unemployed, but are moved to a third category “not in the labor force”.
That gives a much smaller number of unemployed, hence a much lower unemployment rate number. And, of course, that paints a much rosier picture than actually exists. It makes the politicians in charge look better, so that’s why they do it.
And, since that unemployment rate number is so politically charged, it wouldn’t make sense to inflate the unemployment numbers by including children too young to work or people too old to work. That would just make the numbers look worse.
So,in spite of your claim, they just don’t do it.
I’m not sure if you’re be deliberately dense or not
I said 25m, as that was the number being batted around during the 2012 debates between MRomney and 0failure
as for including kids and old folks... they include them in the total number of people, not the number of unemployed. they do that to decrease the resultant percentage... which makes it invalid.
do the math yourself, it’s really not that difficult. try to find the numbers that allow 25m unemployed to become 8% unemployment.
you’ll find that 25m would need to be divided by 300m to become 8% (I believe 8.1% was the actual fedgov approved number of the day back then)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.