It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

And you've responded as if you know exactly what SunTrust will or will not do in the future, based on what they claim has happened in the past, even as they notably refuse to comment specifically on this agreement.

Okay. Fair enough.




posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

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?


That's not even close to true.


An employee shared the severance clause with Computerworld.


The only attorneys quoted in the article were consulted by Computerworld -- they do not represent the Computerworld employees.

And since I had to refer back to the article to be sure I remember correctly, let me note the difference between the vague and misleading statement with some of the actual words from the clause in the severance contract:


This assistance can be by telephone or in-person meetings, and it may be provided without "additional consideration or compensation of any kind," the clause says.


Not quite the same thing... but it is all quite shady, not to mention coercive.
edit on 21-10-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0tForget that, what are they going to do if I hang up the phone on the company when they call me for assistance? Fire me? HA! They already did that.

Take away the severance package which likely has money and benefits attached to it.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: uncommitted

And you've responded as if you know exactly what SunTrust will or will not do in the future, based on what they claim has happened in the past, even as they notably refuse to comment specifically on this agreement.

Okay. Fair enough.



Haven't you spent the entirety of this thread doing exactly what you are saying I am doing?



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: uncommitted

And you've responded as if you know exactly what SunTrust will or will not do in the future, based on what they claim has happened in the past, even as they notably refuse to comment specifically on this agreement.

Okay. Fair enough.



Haven't you spent the entirety of this thread doing exactly what you are saying I am doing?


Nope. I've stated exactly what SunTrust has done, and what is possible -- perhaps probable -- based on the binding contract SunTrust is demanding of the employees. No one goes to the trouble and expense of having a legal document drawn up if they don't intend to enforce it. Consequently, no one should sign a contract that they do not intend to live up to -- or cannot live up to -- and not expect it to be enforced.

If SunTrust only needs their "rare" availability for phone calls, as stated in their statement, then why did they include "in-person" consultations in the severance contract? And if they want employees available for "in-person" consultations, then why did their statement only refer to "rare" phone calls? If it is so "rare," then why don't they simply offer a fair compensation for their time and adjust their severance pay accordingly?
edit on 22-10-2015 by Boadicea because: spelling



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: uncommitted

And you've responded as if you know exactly what SunTrust will or will not do in the future, based on what they claim has happened in the past, even as they notably refuse to comment specifically on this agreement.

Okay. Fair enough.



Haven't you spent the entirety of this thread doing exactly what you are saying I am doing?


Nope. I've stated exactly what SunTrust has done, and what is possible -- perhaps probable -- based on the binding contract SunTrust is demanding of the employees. No one goes to the trouble and expense of having a legal document drawn up if they don't intend to enforce it. Consequently, no one should sign a contract that they do not intend to live up to -- or cannot live up to -- and not expect it to be enforced.

If SunTrust only needs their "rare" availability for phone calls, as stated in their statement, then why did they include "in-person" consultations in the severance contract? And if they want employees available for "in-person" consultations, then why did their statement only refer to "rare" phone calls? If it is so "rare," then w

Why don't they simply offer a fair compensation for their time and adjust their severance pay accordingly?


Tell you what, why not ask them and not make assumptions as to the whys and wherefores?



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted


Tell you what, why not ask them and not make assumptions as to the whys and wherefores?


ComputerWorld asked them... they gave the answer they wanted to give. I wouldn't expect any different or any better if I asked them. They have all the information... they have all the power... if they want to do better, they can. Until then, I can only judge them based on the facts we know.




top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join