Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments At March 31, 2014, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $38.8 and other bond obligations of $2.8 related to performance and payment guarantees. The Company believes that any guarantee obligation that may arise will not be material. The Company also has purchase commitments with telecommunications providers of $13.4 for the remainder of 2014. At March 31, 2014, the Company had an outstanding performance bond obligation of $30.0 related to a performance and payment guarantee for the Company’s former HR Management line of business which was sold in 2010 to NorthgateArinso. Subsequent to completion of the sale of the HR Management business, the Company continues to be responsible for this bond obligation. As part of the gain on disposition, the Company recognized a liability equal to the present value of probability weighted cash flows of potential outcomes, a Level 3 fair value measurement. Although the buyer is obligated to indemnify the Company for any and all losses, costs, liabilities and expenses incurred related to these performance bonds, as of March 31, 2014, the Company maintains a liability of $0.6 for these obligations. The Company's guarantee for this bond obligation expires in August 2016. Contingencies The Company from time to time is involved in various loss contingencies, including tax and legal contingencies that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues for a loss contingency when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. At this time, the Company believes that the results of any such contingencies, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, the outcome of any litigation cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more pending matters could have a materially adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition in the future. In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients, Hyundai Motor America ("Hyundai"), tendered a contractual indemnity claim to Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai violated California's telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls with customer service representatives without providing a disclosure that the calls might be recorded. Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order certifying the suit as a California class action, statutory damages, payment of attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. On March 5, 2012, the court sustained a demurrer filed by Hyundai to one of the Plaintiff's causes of action, but overruled the demurrer as the Plaintiff's other cause of action. On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Hyundai answered the amended complaint on April 16, 2012, by generally denying the allegations and asserting certain affirmative defenses. On February 5, 2013, the court denied a motion filed by Hyundai for summary judgment based on Hyundai's claim that an exemption under the California recording laws was intended to exempt the type of recording done by Hyundai's call centers. Hyundai sought appellate review and, on September 18, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of California denied Hyundai’s petition to grant review. Discovery had been stayed while the Court’s ruling was under appellate review, but the stay was lifted on October 22, 2013. On February 3, 2014, the Court issued an order staying discovery until March 20, 2014. Hyundai, Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. and Plaintiff attended a mediation session on March 13, 2014. The case did not settle at the mediation but the parties and Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. continue to engage in settlement discussions. On March 25, 2014, the Court issued an order continuing the hearing date on class certification to September 29, 2014 and set a status conference for May 20, 2014. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination as to whether Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. will be required to indemnify Hyundai. The Company believes Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. has meritorious defenses to Hyundai's demand for indemnification and also believes there are meritorious defenses to Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated April 29, 2014, Hyundai, Plaintiff and Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. agreed in principal to settle the lawsuit. The agreement in principal is subject to execution of a formal settlement agreement and approval by the Court. As a result of the agreement in principal to settle the lawsuit, the Company recognized an accrual that is representative of the best estimate of the loss expected to be incurred with the resolution of Hyundai’s contractual indemnity claim. The ultimate resolution of the indemnity claim is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

At March 31, 2014, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $38.8 and other bond obligations of $2.8 related to performance and payment guarantees. The Company believes that any guarantee obligation that may arise will not be material. The Company also has purchase commitments with telecommunications providers of $13.4 for the remainder of 2014.

At March 31, 2014, the Company had an outstanding performance bond obligation of $30.0 related to a performance and payment guarantee for the Company’s former HR Management line of business which was sold in 2010 to NorthgateArinso. Subsequent to completion of the sale of the HR Management business, the Company continues to be responsible for this bond obligation. As part of the gain on disposition, the Company recognized a liability equal to the present value of probability weighted cash flows of potential outcomes, a Level 3 fair value measurement. Although the buyer is obligated to indemnify the Company for any and all losses, costs, liabilities and expenses incurred related to these performance bonds, as of March 31, 2014, the Company maintains a liability of $0.6 for these obligations. The Company's guarantee for this bond obligation expires in August 2016.

Contingencies

The Company from time to time is involved in various loss contingencies, including tax and legal contingencies that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues for a loss contingency when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. At this time, the Company believes that the results of any such contingencies, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, the outcome of any litigation cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more pending matters could have a materially adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition in the future.

In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients, Hyundai Motor America ("Hyundai"), tendered a contractual indemnity claim to Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai violated California's telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls with customer service representatives without providing a disclosure that the calls might be recorded. Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order certifying the suit as a California class action, statutory damages, payment of attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. On March 5, 2012, the court sustained a demurrer filed by Hyundai to one of the Plaintiff's causes of action, but overruled the demurrer as the Plaintiff's other cause of action. On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Hyundai answered the amended complaint on April 16, 2012, by generally denying the allegations and asserting certain affirmative defenses. On February 5, 2013, the court denied a motion filed by Hyundai for summary judgment based on Hyundai's claim that an exemption under the California recording laws was intended to exempt the type of recording done by Hyundai's call centers. Hyundai sought appellate review and, on September 18, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of California denied Hyundai’s petition to grant review. Discovery had been stayed while the Court’s ruling was under appellate review, but the stay was lifted on October 22, 2013. On February 3, 2014, the Court issued an order staying discovery until March 20, 2014. Hyundai, Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. and Plaintiff attended a mediation session on March 13, 2014. The case did not settle at the mediation but the parties and Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. continue to engage in settlement discussions. On March 25, 2014, the Court issued an order continuing the hearing date on class certification to September 29, 2014 and set a status conference for May 20, 2014.

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination as to whether Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. will be required to indemnify Hyundai. The Company believes Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. has meritorious defenses to Hyundai's demand for indemnification and also believes there are meritorious defenses to Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated April 29, 2014, Hyundai, Plaintiff and Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. agreed in principal to settle the lawsuit. The agreement in principal is subject to execution of a formal settlement agreement and approval by the Court. As a result of the agreement in principal to settle the lawsuit, the Company recognized an accrual that is representative of the best estimate of the loss expected to be incurred with the resolution of Hyundai’s contractual indemnity claim. The ultimate resolution of the indemnity claim is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.