The relevant section from the actual report is arguably clearer than the WaPo article: | However, there was also a large number of workers who were classified

The relevant section from the actual report is arguably clearer than the WaPo article: | 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. Link found in that WaPo article, so credit due for that: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm