Talk:Convergys/Archives/2013

Work Enviroment

• The quality of work varies GREATLY from contract to contract, and from location to location. Also, depending on your position. Some people love the place, but the vast majority think it's a joke, or absolutely dread coming to work.
• I'm one of those.

See, I don't understand this issue... probably because I'm in the Erlanger location with a beautiful new building, great coworkers, and great pay. There's nothing to complain about in my opinion. ·:RedAugust 17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• This company is Fortune's list of Most Admired. I understand why. This company is run like a sweatshop. This company underpays professional positions in an extreme manner. I ask that other Convergys employees list their position and hourly pay / yearly salary:

Traffic Analyst (This company won't even give proper titles, internally I'm a Command Center Associate) $30k/year. That's about the 5th percentile for my state, median being approximately $44k/year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.180.20 (talk • contribs)

• Employee statments can be found on http://www.jobvent.com/ and http://www.ratemyemployer.ca/ . Just enter the name of the employer in the search box. --Achim (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Benefits

• Regarding benefits, there are a fair amount in place, but some are nearly impossible to use. Their RRSP contributions are decided after you've contributed for the year, so there is no way to tell how much they will match until your year is over. For tuition/professional fee reimbursement, I've seen quite a few examples where they won't pay. A classic example is someone going to HR, warning that they are taking this or that course beforehand. The HR rep says "Great, thanks for letting us know, go for it, come back with you bills/certificate/diploma and we'll get that fixed up." Said person comes back after, and HR tells them they needed to submit X or Y paperwork before hand to be eligable. Usually if you ask HR, they insist there is nothing to do beforehand. I've seen this several times. This also often happens with employee referal bonuses, as well.
  • I work for Convergys and it is not too bad. They offer all sorts of benefits and discounts and tuition re-imbursment.
    • They also offer unlimited internet access ...
      • They do not offer access at my site it is prohibbited to use the internet except for direct customer needs. Also the link www.convergyssucks.com is of no factual or reference value, please stop re-adding it as it is in violation of WP:EL --Magosis 23:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They told us upfront at my old center that we had to apply for tuition reembursment before hand. Thats how I payed for college with out taking out loans. I would save up my money, apply before hand. I would pay the simester in advance out of my own pocket, and with a little goverment aid I did not have to pay back. I would then take all the required stuff into HR after the simester, and they would pay out. When it was all said and done, I ended up paying a total of $0.00 of my own money for my Bachelors in Computer Science, because they gave me back all the money I spent. The great part is I left Convergys the day after I graduated, and went for a higher paying job that required my degree. That means, while they payed my way through college, they saw no benefit for it, only I saw a benefit.72.174.221.19 (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Cleanup

• Just did a touch of housekeeping here folks. Hope it was appropriate. I did not remove any comments, but lets keep in mind this is not a forum for discussing problems or opinions regarding convergys. Magosis 07:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, i was also an employee og Convergys Incorporated for 2 years. It is right not to make this as a forum. maybe people just cant get enough of what they had experienced in the company.. And likewise, it is exactly what i had with them.. unfortunately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.14.194.26 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The ConvergysSucks website.

Two things, first off I beleive that the bloggers website which connects people who work for convergys all across the world should be added this the "convergys" submission. It is an unofficial site true, yet has many many valid things to say about working there.

The second item is that I could see how this link would not go up as "convergys" would not want it up. this is not a valid argument. The convergyssucks website holds some very valid information and vents for people working at the sites as well has specific threads talking about ways to improve convergys.

Regardless, this website, has a very strong connection with employees of convergys, which really make up the company and therefore should be on.

thank you Logan.symington 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) , logan

• The problem here is not that the site is unofficial. If you look at the Wikipedia pages for large companies you will see mentions of criticism and links to non-corporate sites. This is perfectly acceptable. The issue is that the ConvergysSucks site is a discussion forum. While the Convergys employees that have grievances against the company have every right to express them, external links to discussion forums are to be avoided according to Wikipedia's External Linking policy.--Areia

Ok, this is interesting, I assume then that the policy change (of no linking to forums) is a fairly recent change to the rules, I recall only two weeks ago when the link was on. Now I am wondering why the rule was changed, what makes forums so "bad" or unwanted as to not be usefull as external links. Logan Symington Logan.symington 13:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's very recent, definitely not a matter of weeks. When the link was first added shortly after I created the article I remember leaving it, and even re-adding it when someone removed it, because I thought it had a certain relevance. It was only when someone later on pointed out that policy link that I started removing it whenever it was added. The link gets added regularly, and sometimes it takes a little while before someone removes it, which might explain why you saw it. As for the policy itself, based on the other 'to be avoided' items in that list, I would guess the problem with forum sites is the lack of recognized authority. Wikipedia's been trying hard to move toward articles having verifiable sources; I guess forum sites don't fit that profile. --Areia 03:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually what nails it is whether or not there is a moderator running the site who is impartial and thus also concerned about his or her liability with publicly posted prose, or at least someone who will permit BOTH sides of the proverbial coin. http://www.convergyssucks.com/ 's site's name is already indicative that there is little likelihood of anything positive being said about the place, whether the bad stuff is valid or not. An internet forum with a moderator who seeks or at least permits balance is not against the rules so far as I could see. --Achim (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But if you want balanced moderators then convergsys.com would be banned, because everything they say will be pro-company. Some of the information convergssucks.com may be junk, but to ignore it is to ignore a vaste amount of valid first-hand material and will bias this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.215.15 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe all links to internet forums are against the External Linking policy. Specifically: "10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." I don't see any mention of balanced moderation negating that rule.--Areia (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Philippines

Can someone please explain the significance of the Philipines paragraph and why it stands out from the rest of the company? --Shuki (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tag & Suggested Changes

I've added the tag as the article reads like an employee has written it Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's actually worse than that. Did a few quick Google searches on some of the marketing language used in the Services section and it appears to be copy/paste from other online sources. I just corrected a misplaced ":" for now, but this Wiki could really use some love. I think some of these Scottish articles Kernel Saunters recently posted as links should probably be references somewhere and in general it could use some work/references.

I'd like to solicit here for any suggested changes people have and - if I have time - I'll try to give the Wiki some time and attention soon that incorporates any feedback posted here. I've noticed there's a lot of discussion about pay/benefits/work environment that could warrant a controversy section. I've also noticed that the outsourcing Wiki already covers the issue, but I'd be interested in any references people have on a notable Convergys-specific controversy that's not just representative of the industry (no opinions, just references plz). Corporate Minion (talk)

Well, for starters, there's so much businessese gobbledygook in the intro that I feel like I know less about the company after reading it than before. I'd reword it in normal English if I had the first clue what half of it was trying to say. 24.78.210.79 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Corporate Minion - the Overview section reads more like a stock prospectus than an article. There was the beginnings of another class-action suit in their Tucson, AZ office about 10 years ago IIRC BruceWiley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Original Research

Removed a paragraph that essentially was original research and speculation. Mister Tog (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)