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.
Guess they could always move it to Outer Mongolia and hire Peggy...
Which is probably what they’ve done and is the real reason for the layoffs.
Right!
The highest corporate tax rates on Earth are just running them all off.
bump
You said:
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.
Yes, kids and old folks are included in the total population, and not in the workforce numbers. That is as it should be.
The unemployment percentage as reported by the BLS is only based on the total number of people in the workforce who they consider to be unemployed. And yes, there are definite problems with the way they define "unemployed".
What IS invalid is multiplying the unemployment rate percentage by the total population, to get your 25 million number. It is based on a misunderstanding and misuse of the statistics, and it gives a misleading answer. Your arithmetic is correct, but the logic behind it is faulty.
What this error inherent in this calculation actually does is OVERSTATE the number of unemployed people, while at the same time, the way they calculate the percentage UNDERSTATES the number of unemployed.
Which error dominates? That I can't say off hand.
But your original assertion that we need a better set of definitions for these statistics is right on the money. I agree totally.
As my dear Father told me many decades ago, “you can complain about a Job when someone puts a Gun to your Head and makes you take it”.
He also told me, “nobody owes you a living, so shut up and get back to work”.
I never realized that my Father should have been President.
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.