Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments At September 30, 2013, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $38.6 and other bond obligations of $1.6 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 $1.1 for the remainder of 2013. At September 30, 2013, 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 September 30, 2013, the Company maintains a liability of $1.0 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 May 7, 2012, Hyundai filed a motion 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. On February 5, 2013, the court denied the motion. On July 2, 2013, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, denied Hyundai's appeal of the court’s ruling, 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. At a status hearing on October 22, 2013 the court lifted the stay on discovery. 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. The likelihood of losses that may become payable under such claims, the amount of reasonably possible losses associated with such claims, and whether such losses may be material cannot be determined or estimated at this time. For these reasons, the Company has not established a reserve with respect to this matter. On March 28, 2013, the Company received a demand from a subsidiary of NEC Corporation for defense and indemnification under the stock and asset purchase agreement among the Company, NEC Corporation and the subsidiary with respect to the sale by the Company of its Information Management business. The demand was made in connection with a third party claim that, among other things, the business lacked certain necessary software licenses at the time of the sale. On May 10, 2013, the parties completed a settlement agreement. The Company settled in cash its obligations under this agreement during the second quarter of 2013. The final settlement did not have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or financial condition.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

At September 30, 2013, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $38.6 and other bond obligations of $1.6 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 $1.1 for the remainder of 2013.

At September 30, 2013, 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 September 30, 2013, the Company maintains a liability of $1.0 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 May 7, 2012, Hyundai filed a motion 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. On February 5, 2013, the court denied the motion. On July 2, 2013, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, denied Hyundai's appeal of the court’s ruling, 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. At a status hearing on October 22, 2013 the court lifted the stay on discovery.

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. The likelihood of losses that may become payable under such claims, the amount of reasonably possible losses associated with such claims, and whether such losses may be material cannot be determined or estimated at this time. For these reasons, the Company has not established a reserve with respect to this matter.

On March 28, 2013, the Company received a demand from a subsidiary of NEC Corporation for defense and indemnification under the stock and asset purchase agreement among the Company, NEC Corporation and the subsidiary with respect to the sale by the Company of its Information Management business. The demand was made in connection with a third party claim that, among other things, the business lacked certain necessary software licenses at the time of the sale. On May 10, 2013, the parties completed a settlement agreement. The Company settled in cash its obligations under this agreement during the second quarter of 2013. The final settlement did not have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or financial condition.