You can characterize it that way:

    P(lose job | bargainer): 50%
    P(lose job | not bargainer): 6.25%

but

    -----widgets team-----
      P(lose job | bargainer) 50%
      P(lose job | not bargainer) 100%
    -----everyone else----
      P(lose job | bargainer) NaN
      P(lose job | not bargainer) 0%
    ----------------------

Simpson's paradox in its prototypical form occurs when the comparison drawn in the top table (of just one cell) is reversed in every cell of the bottom table. (Which has two cells, here.)

This isn't the cleanest example, since the comparison at the bottom can't be drawn at all. But the way the problem is narrated, it would counterfactually have exhibited the paradox.