IBJNews

Closing of Greenwood call center to affect 260 workers

IBJ Staff
October 7, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Greenwood call center operated by Indianapolis-based TeleServices Direct is set to close Dec. 4, leaving 260 workers without jobs.

In a notification received by the Indiana Department of Workforce Development on Wednesday, the company attributed the closing to "a loss of business volume."

TeleServices Direct said the closing will affect 110 full-time and 150 part-time employees.

The facility is the second call center operated by TeleServices Direct to become a casualty of the weak economy within the past year. In February, the company closed its Lafayette location, also because of a downturn in business, putting 188 part-time and 16 full-time employees out of work. However, the center reopened in July and now employs more than 200.

TeleServices Direct is a division of Career Horizons Inc., also based in Indianapolis. The company was found in 1989 as a direct marketer but evolved into a provider of call-center services. Affiliate companies TSD Jamaica and TSD Global operate multiple call centers in Jamaica and the Philippines.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • new employee tax credit
    Is this smoke and mirrors to be able to take advantage of the "new hire tax credit" that is in effect this year? I hope these rehired employees are not being counted as new employees.
  • Correction RE: Lafayette
    The Lafayette Call Center location has re-opened. It was temporarily idled for a few months, but is now back in operation with over 200 employees.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

    2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

    3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

    4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

    5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

    ADVERTISEMENT