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

a reply to: Edumakated

I can believe that has been the norm... my brother was once a big mucketymuck in IT at a major corporation and got one heluva severance package.

But so much has changed, at the expense of the little guy, I don't doubt this could be changing as well. I really really hope they prove me wrong.

originally posted by: Tardacus

not a very smart company, I wouldn`t want a bunch of laid off disgruntled people handling my IT.
if the laid off workers do a crappy job what is the company gonna do, fire them?

I wouldn't either... which makes me suspicious of why they would demand a binding contract for that very purpose. It's not adding up.

a reply to: Zarniwoop


Once they are laid off, they can apply for unemployment and start collecting if approved




NOT IF They sign the contract...
their severance will be paid weekly so as to NULLIFY the Unemployment claim...(they maintain an income flow)

there is no double-dipping allowed and the govt bean counters can delay or completely erase the newly fired workers (as they are un-working but IN-Eligible to collect unemployment as they are not yet broke or indigent with NO income) in the monthly Jobs Report we all so eagerly await & the stock market seems to be over-sensitive to...


...

people need to wake-up and smell-the-coffee

I don't think any (exhaustive) explanation by myself will change your mind.

a reply to: St Udio

yeah... I corrected myself here

And it doesn't seem to matter whether it is lump sum or over time.

[It doesn't work like that in all states.]

I don't think any (exhaustive) explanation by myself will change your mind.

A simple link with helpful information like I provided would have changed my mind

originally posted by: Edumakated

I've often been more in the camp that higher paid loyal employees are better than cheaper employees with high turnover.

I spent years at my job making this argument. The highest performing stores were the ones with the best pay. It translated to less turnover so less training costs, less inventory loss due to mismanagement or theft, better product and core client knowledge, larger repeat client base.

But each time a new exec reviewed the books, they always wanted to slash and burn wages and long term employees. Whereas executive pay/perks never went backwards.

a reply to: Zarniwoop

What else could they do short of posting the entire agreement?

Lots of things. At the very least, they could have expressed their desire and intention to be fair, their concern and regret at the dismay of their employees, and promise to be more specific in exactly what their expectations are and stipulate such in a new agreement.

a reply to: Boadicea

and promise to be more specific in exactly what their expectations are and stipulate such in a new agreement.

See. I think you've got it now.

Legal agreements are not that easy to comprehend if you don't have any experience with them. And all of this...

they could have expressed their desire and intention to be fair, their concern and regret at the dismay of their employees

is best suited for internal meetings with employees (which likely took place), not to be played out on the Internet.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Do you HONESTLY think the entire corporate system has been designed to screw over employees like this? I mean let's look at this critically. As of this article's authorship, only one company is attempting to do this that we know about. It isn't the government that is doing this AND the article points out that such a severance agreement likely has no teeth legally.

Where exactly does ANY of this hint at that Suntrust will get away with this if it is fought in court? How are workers in other companies harmed here? I work in IT, my company wouldn't do this to me. Heck they wouldn't even lay me off to outsource (AND we employee tons of people on work visas). To me, this looks like one company attempting something quasi-legal (and that they likely know is unethical) to save them money. I'm not seeing a consorted effort from other corporations defending their actions or from the government upholding those severance agreements.

I hate when people say that the system is "deigned to keep them down". No the system is "designed" at all. Different entities try different tactics to make them money and there are times where you end up on the short end of the stick, but there are also many times that companies get put in their place and workers benefit.

Darlin', I don't THINK it. I KNOW it.

originally posted by: Zarniwoop

I was completely wrong about how unemployment works in Georgia (very surprised, but wrong)

I tip my hat to you. It's refreshing and heartening to see someone acknowledge a mistake and move on.



And I thank you for doing the research and posting your results. It's much appreciated!

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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Do you HONESTLY think the entire corporate system has been designed to screw over employees like this?

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.

...only one company is attempting to do this that we know about.

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

It isn't the government that is doing this...

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

I work in IT, my company wouldn't do this to me. Heck they wouldn't even lay me off to outsource (AND we employee tons of people on work visas)

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?

I hate when people say that the system is "deigned to keep them down". No the system is "designed" at all. Different entities try different tactics to make them money and there are times where you end up on the short end of the stick, but there are also many times that companies get put in their place and workers benefit.

That's fair enough.

Ya both kinda missed my earlier point. This has been going on since the mid-90s. They're just getting more daring about it. And trust me they've had their legal teams all over it. No doubt they dole out the severance in pieces too, both to keep making interest on the money and to keep those disposed of on the hook. I'd venture to even say that a good bit of many company's "profits" they show stockholders is creative accounting, and much of it the result of acts like this and others.

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: Boadicea

See. I think you've got it now.

Awww shucks!

"...they could have expressed their desire and intention to be fair, their concern and regret at the dismay of their employees..." is best suited for internal meetings with employees (which likely took place), not to be played out on the Internet.

Fair enough. It's the employees they have to work this out with. But since it did go public, I don't think a simple statement of good will would be out of line -- for PR purposes if nothing else.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I don't think I missed your point... I may not have been as familiar with the particulars as you -- and I sure appreciate you sharing! -- but I figured it was another slippery slope so to speak... tyranny in increments.

a reply to: Boadicea

I agree that they could have added a little compassion in their statement.

But hell... it's a bank after all.

a reply to: Boadicea
I don't actually find this weird at all. I a work in the IT industry. My last employer was a MSP, I left 2 years ago. As a subject matter expert, I still receive phone calls occasionally to from them to ask about things that were implemented during my time there even though records exist either in tickets or in work instructions. It can be par for the course working in the industry. For me it is not something written in to my separation package, but if written into theirs I don't see anything work with it unless it interferes with their new roles post separation.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Haven't you been keeping up with the thread? This wasn't that big of a deal. Suntrust clarified what was required of the severance package. They aren't requiring them to work for free. Just to be able to ask them questions from time to time about legal aspects of things they may have worked on in the company, and it rarely happens. It's not pro-bono work, they get a severance pay, and sometimes they MAY have to talk to their old company. Sure it sucks they laid them off and outsourced for cheaper labor, but the deal wasn't as bad as initially reported.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

Actually you posted the statement from the company that said that the original article was misleading, so I'm not sure why you are making that assumption as it's based on information that the company say is wrong - do you just not believe them?

The original article you posted didn't talk about legal action, could you point that piece out please?

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

And again, you've responded as though the original article was valid while the company involved is saying it is not. I had no intention of being sly. If customers aren't purchasing a product then shareholders aren't going to be happy - it's logically the same commitment really - kind of business management basic skills.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

The package as represented is represented in the article you referred to by an attorney being paid for by employees about to be made redundant - you of course think that makes it unbiased?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Boadicea

Actually you posted the statement from the company that said that the original article was misleading, so I'm not sure why you are making that assumption as it's based on information that the company say is wrong - do you just not believe them?

I know they are using weasel words. "Misleading" is a weasel word when you don't clarify how it is misleading.... "Rare" is also a weasel word, and is relative. Perhaps what they really mean is, "Of all the people we lay off, we might only call one person 1,000 times." That would technically qualify as "rare," and it would work out great for everyone but that one employee. So I guess I believe that their statement could be misleading, especially as they did not make any stipulations or clarifications.

The original article you posted didn't talk about legal action, could you point that piece out please?

I'm not sure what you mean. The severence contract the employees must sign to get their severence pay is a legal action. Any breach of that contract could result in legal action.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Haven't you been keeping up with the thread? This wasn't that big of a deal. Suntrust clarified what was required of the severance package.

SunTrust didn't clarify anything... they suggested and alluded, but until such future labor expectations are specified and clarified in the severance agreement, it's all just talk. And unless all employees are subject to exactly the same amount of future labor, then either someone is working for free or someone is getting a higher severance package.

And as another poster pointed out, all of which can affect their ability to collect unemployment, depending on how it is handled (which has also not been specified or clarified). The employees may not even understand that aspect yet.