Bank’s severance deal requires IT workers to be on call for two years

a reply to: kosmicjack

You don't know that at all. You are making an assumption based on your personal anecdotal evidence with service type jobs. By any chance, do any of your anecdotes involve you working for Urban Outfitters? I'd still find it lacking in credibility, but at least in that case you can make an actual educated guess as to how the management pitched this idea to its workforce.

But hey, for every Urban Outfitters, I can point out a company like Costco that offers its employees a decent living wage. Thus your anecdote is countered by my own anecdote and we are nowhere closer to proving who was right or wrong in the discussion.

While I was on leave during my first pregnancy I received a few phone calls for "just a quick question". We didn't know those were against the law until HR told us.

The point is that I had placed papers in specific books on specific shelves ( where they belonged) and no one could find them. That's very small details. There's honestly no way there would be a point to ask those type of questions two years later.

This is legalise at its finest stupidity.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Excuse me for butting in here...

Speaking only for myself, I do honestly think there are many many trying to re-design the system and will screw over employees like this.

So why can't there be many trying to re-design the system to benefit employees as well?

I'm worried about the precedent that could be set that others would no doubt follow...

I'm not. Like I said, the article points out that such a severance pay is likely unenforceable.

Awww... come on! Be fair!!! Some of our congress critters have worked real hard to be the bestest crony capitalist they can be -- at least give credit where credit is due

The point there was that the government wasn't involved with the issue in the OP, not that crony capitalism doesn't exist.

Why do you think that is? (Not challenging you -- sincere question) What advantage/benefit above and beyond cost savings do they see that SunTrust doesn't?

Well for starters they just gave me an $11,000 raise because I threatened to leave because my leaving would leave them very under-equipped in the IT department.

The original source, Computer World, has updated the article:

Editor's note: Computerworld asked for comment on this story before publication, and SunTrust declined. The bank then issued this statement at around 11:30 AM on Tuesday, Oct. 20, from Mike McCoy, who works in bank PR:

The headline and premise of your story: "Bank’s severance deal requires IT workers to be on call for two years" is misleading. We do not require former employees to be "on call" as implied. We respectfully request a change to the headline and a clarification of our practice.

SunTrust statement:

It is a rare occasion when we need to call a former employee. The “continuing cooperation” clause is designed to assist the company under scenarios that arise infrequently when we need access to knowledge possessed by a former employee. Those scenarios primarily relate to regulatory or legal matters. For instance, we may need to reach out to former employees to ensure we accurately understand situations in which they were involved while employed by the company. SunTrust has never used this provision to require a former employee to be “on call” to help conduct day-to-day business in any way.

a reply to: Boadicea

Severance means they're receiving a compensatory check of some fashion, voluntarily, in exchange for agreeing to provide reasonable assistance for the next two years. It's certainly not a great situation to be in, but to say they're not getting any pay for it or to make it seem mandatory is wrong, too.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Boadicea

They are being given two years of severance pay.

That's not in my source article... care to share yours?

They are not unemployed. What demands are being made of them? There's a good chance that they may never be called. if they are called, they are being PAID for their time. Some people would consider this a great deal.

If that is the case, then yes, I would agree that is a great deal.... basically being guaranteed full-time pay for part-time work for two years... yeah, I'd go for that. But it's also one of those "if it sounds too good to be true than it probably is."

Oh wait I know the problem. It is the EVIL bankers that are doing this.

Evil? Not sure about that.... but I do know that they're sure not our friends!

a reply to: Boadicea

See. This is what I've been getting at since page 1. There is no concerted effort against employees mounted by Suntrust. It's just a standard severance agreement, which has now been shown to have been sensationalized by the people who turned it over to the media.

originally posted by: Zarniwoop

In return for a sevrence package, they are agreeing that it is OK for the company, in a rare situation, to call them up and ask a question. At that point, the former employee can determine whether it is a reasonable request.

"Rare?" "The former emplyee can determine whether it is a reasonable request?"

That's not stipulated in what I've read... can you share your source? What I've read is very vague and very open to abuse.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What I see is something different. I see a system that waves and wanes in favor of employees and employers depending on the will of the population. I see while there are many problem companies making many problems for many Americans, I also see that there are more that have popped up that want to create images that are counter to those problem companies.

You're right -- I see this also. And I'd love to see those companies propped up on a pedestal for all to see. I'd even like to see them rewarded for their civic contributions.

But I also want to see the bad companies named and shamed for all to see...

a reply to: Boadicea

SunTrust statement:

It is a rare occasion when we need to call a former employee. The “continuing cooperation” clause is designed to assist the company under scenarios that arise infrequently when we need access to knowledge possessed by a former employee. Those scenarios primarily relate to regulatory or legal matters. For instance, we may need to reach out to former employees to ensure we accurately understand situations in which they were involved while employed by the company. SunTrust has never used this provision to require a former employee to be “on call” to help conduct day-to-day business in any way.

Also from the article:

The bank's severance deal includes a "continuing cooperation" clause for a period of two years, where the employee agrees to "make myself reasonably available" to SunTrust "regarding matters in which I have been involved in the course of my employment with SunTrust and/or about which I have knowledge as a result of my employment at SunTrust."

You don't have to believe them, of course. But I wouldn't see too many scenarios where the bank would need to talk to former IT employees unless it indeed involved a legal case where they needed some info. That would be reasonable.

Calling a former employee after severance and asking them to do actual IT work... that would be unreasonable and unlikely.

a reply to: uncommitted

If I was laid off and a former manager I liked called me and said "Hi, can you remember that company 123 where you were involved in developing an enhancement? We've lost the documentation, can you help?" I'd probably say yes, particularly if my severance pay left me feeling well disposed to the former manager and the company.

I'll bet that's true of these employees as well...

If someone I never met called and said "be in my office at 9am Monday to explain what you did for company 123" I probably wouldn't. That's life, deal with it.

Hence SunTrust's need for coercion... and a cause for legal action against you for breach of contract at the very least.

a reply to: Boadicea

Hence SunTrust's need for coercion... and a cause for legal action against you for breach of contract at the very least.

That's quite a leap.

One would need to read the entire agreement to make that determination. Have you?

a reply to: Edumakated

Someone should tell that to a company I work for. 2 times this month already they have had us sign another more detailed non-compete. I can only guess they are trying to close some holes that cost them.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, but it's become the norm. Companies have one commitment - to their shareholders, everything else is subservient to that.

Yes, and when wasn't it? When wasn't the voice of either the people who paid for the product or the people who invested in the products development not the loudest voices? Kind of thinking a very, very long time ago.

I see what you did there...

Kosmic Jack specified "one commitment -- to their shareholders, everything else is subservient to that." You agree, and then slipped in the consumer to negate the "one" commitment. Very sly...

And yet, you make my point. Yell it from the rooftops and let the court of public opinion pass judgment. If SunTrust isn't doing anything wrong, they should welcome the free publicity.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: Boadicea

Soooo....
If I am let go from a position and they call me to do some work for them anyway, What are they going to do if I screw it up reeeaal good.
How do you fire some body who is no longer employed by you and you are not going to pay for their work????

I would assume that you are sued in a court of law for breach of contract and forced to spend your hard-earned dollars to defend yourself against a giant that can bury you in motions, depositions and a mountain of paperwork that you cannot afford... Why else the need for a legal contract unless they intend to enforce it?

a reply to: yeahright

The only way they can enforce this is if the IT workers signed contracts with the clause referring to this employment specification.

So it is more to the story.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Boadicea

Severance means they're receiving a compensatory check of some fashion, voluntarily, in exchange for agreeing to provide reasonable assistance for the next two years.

"Reasonable" is a relative term, and means different things according to different perspectives, such as that of a (former) employee and (former) employer.

...to say they're not getting any pay for it or to make it seem mandatory is wrong, too.

And once the severance pay is lumped in with future labor, with no clear differentiation, those are all just weasel words. If you and I are both employees who accept the exact same severance deal for the exact same amount, then they call you repeatedly and they never call me, then all of my severance pay is just that: severance pay. But your severance pay is necessarily lowered by future labor as some of your severance pay is actually wages.

If SunTrust wanted to be fair and reasonable, they would make it part of the severance contract. Of course, they still can I suppose... maybe a public hue and cry will help.

a reply to: Zarniwoop

But I wouldn't see too many scenarios where the bank would need to talk to former IT employees unless it indeed involved a legal case where they needed some info. That would be reasonable.

Calling a former employee after severance and asking them to do actual IT work... that would be unreasonable and unlikely.

I would agree with your scenario of reasonable and unreasonable. The employees probably would also, without the coercion of a legal agreement.

If the future need is truly so "rare," then there should be no need to make it a vague legal binding contract; or SunTrust could calculate the probably reasonable future needs, commit that amount to fair compensation for future needs, and adjust the severance packages accordingly.

The package as represented is too vague and leaves too much room for abuse.

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: Boadicea

Hence SunTrust's need for coercion... and a cause for legal action against you for breach of contract at the very least.

That's quite a leap.

One would need to read the entire agreement to make that determination. Have you?

Not a leap at all. The only need for a binding contract is for future enforcement... as in breach of contract if you do not fulfill their idea of "reasonable" servitude.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

See. This is what I've been getting at since page 1. There is no concerted effort against employees mounted by Suntrust. It's just a standard severance agreement, which has now been shown to have been sensationalized by the people who turned it over to the media.

Maybe... maybe not. I'd have to see a "before" and "after" draft of the contract to know if that's true or not.

I hope they prove me wrong but I'm not holding my breath.