https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
However, there was also a large number of workers who were classified as employed but absent from
work. As was the case in March and April, household survey interviewers were instructed to classify
employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-related business closures as unemployed on
temporary layoff. However, it is apparent that not all such workers were so classified. BLS and the
Census Bureau are investigating why this misclassification error continues to occur and are taking
additional steps to address the issue.
If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to “other reasons” (over and
above the number absent for other reasons in a typical May) had been classified as unemployed on
temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than
reported (on a not seasonally adjusted basis). However, according to usual practice, the data from the
household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions are taken to
reclassify survey responses.
= new reply since forum marked as read
