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

originally posted by: Edumakated
Non-compete clauses are typically not enforceable at all but the highest level executives and even then they typically won't hold up.

Interesting... and good to know.

In this case, Suntrust is probably concerned that they some knowledge might be lost. What they should have done is offer to pay for consulting work. No one at the level of these employees is going to be "on call". It simply isn't practical.

Thank you -- yes! I can understand SunTrust needing the further services of their previous employees, but the terms and conditions should be clearly spelled out and limited. Such a vague demand is ripe for abuse.

You go get some lower level IT job and then a year later, Suntrust calls asking you for help. You just can't drop what you are doing as your current employer is going to be like WTF?

While I find this behavior by companies somewhat deplorable, I also understand why they make these decisions. Banking is a relatively low margin business, particularly for commercial banks like SunTrust. Companies are constantly having to look for ways to cut costs.

I find that very hard to believe... especially with $189 billion in assets.

The people whining about this banks actions are the first to penny pinch or jump ship to a cheaper competitor.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not whining, just calling them out loud and clear... and I don't "jump ship" simply for a cheaper competitor. I understand the difference between "price" and "value" and "cost." Quality of product, customer service and employee relations are all considerations for me in any ongoing business relationship.

Umm..I know. Please reread what I actually wrote. Other than the amount of time it's almost exactly the same.

No one cares then, no ones cared since and in between then and now, and no one's gonna care about rhis eirher. American workers are SOL. As designed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ~Lucidity

It's more than just requiring the old employees to train their replacements. It's requiring them to actually be on call while no longer employed at the company for an additional two YEARS after their layoff date. So 6 months down the line, you have a new IT job and Suntrust calls you out of the blue to get assistance with some application that you serviced while working for them. According to this severance "agreement" (I put that in quotes because it should really be called coercion) they'd have to actually HELP Suntrust with their issue AND not be able to seek compensation for their time and effort. It's pseudo-slave labor.

I'm pretty sure if they don't agree they get no severence, or a great deal less. Severence in some cases can be up to a year's salary. So in effect they'd really be getting NO severence...just signing a contract to agree to work as-requested for two years at a reduced rate. Semantics.

ETA: Severence can be a very big deal to someone who was just fired.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Lol, If I worked for a company that tried to do this, I'd throw that severance agreement in the trash. It's unenforceable, has no benefit to me, and requires me to go out of my way for a company that I don't work for. Psh. Forget 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.

The balls on Suntrust are ENORMOUS. To think they think they can get away with laying off employees then forcing them to sign a contract forcing them into unpaid compensation on top of that is just outstanding...

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Edumakated
Non-compete clauses are typically not enforceable at all but the highest level executives and even then they typically won't hold up.

Interesting... and good to know.

In this case, Suntrust is probably concerned that they some knowledge might be lost. What they should have done is offer to pay for consulting work. No one at the level of these employees is going to be "on call". It simply isn't practical.

Thank you -- yes! I can understand SunTrust needing the further services of their previous employees, but the terms and conditions should be clearly spelled out and limited. Such a vague demand is ripe for abuse.

You go get some lower level IT job and then a year later, Suntrust calls asking you for help. You just can't drop what you are doing as your current employer is going to be like WTF?

While I find this behavior by companies somewhat deplorable, I also understand why they make these decisions. Banking is a relatively low margin business, particularly for commercial banks like SunTrust. Companies are constantly having to look for ways to cut costs.

I find that very hard to believe... especially with $189 billion in assets.

The people whining about this banks actions are the first to penny pinch or jump ship to a cheaper competitor.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not whining, just calling them out loud and clear... and I don't "jump ship" simply for a cheaper competitor. I understand the difference between "price" and "value" and "cost." Quality of product, customer service and employee relations are all considerations for me in any ongoing business relationship.

The bank has $189 billion in assets under management - i.e., check deposits. Meaning other people's money. If you add up all their customer's deposits, it totals $189 billion.

The article is intentionally misleading to make it seem like the bank is sitting on $189 billion that it can use to pay people, etc.

Suntrust is a larger regional bank. They had $8.3 billion in revenue in 2014.

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.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

This is a fair point. I actually spent a good deal of time looking for additional sources on this to try to find out what exactly the severance pay actually was so as to warrant Suntrust demanding that ex-employees work pro-bono for two years. However, I couldn't find a single source that mentioned this number. It's really the key piece of information that needs to be known to see how unethical this severance agreement truly is.

I would just lose that phone number. "So, sorry - I missed your call."

Prove I didn't.

a reply to: Boadicea

They are being given two years of severance pay. 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.

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

I don't see what the big deal here is.

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.

I'd sign it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, but it's become the norm. Companies have one commitment - to their shareholders, everything else is subservient to that. It's astounding that you can even try to make a serious counter argument post 2008/2009. From shrinking product size, to limiting services, to billing for add-on fees, to reduction of benefits, to limiting full-time employees, to bail outs - corporations absolutely game the system and, because the job market was so trashed, they got to do it with impunity because everyone was just so damn glad to have any job.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Has it become the norm? Or have we let the media tell us that it has become the norm? We hear anecdotal story after anecdotal story about companies outsourcing their jobs overseas, yet many companies still employ Americans. If it was so cost beneficial to outsource all the jobs in your company and the system is designed to benefit the corporation, then how come not every corporation has done this? There are still TONS of Americans employed across the country in various jobs including tech jobs. Why is this?

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. I don't have statistics or numbers to back this up like I usually like to rely on, because I think that any research I did on this would likely come back very biased, but I damn well KNOW that things aren't as simple as you and Lucidity are trying to claim. Things are NEVER simple in reality. Only in our minds and perceptions.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Have you ever even read Consumerist, which is sourced from customers and employees? Or worked in the service industry?

Case in point.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
but I damn well KNOW that things aren't as simple as you and Lucidity are trying to claim. Things are NEVER simple in reality. Only in our minds and perceptions.

Oh good Lord, and neither are corporations so benevolent and ethical as you might imagine.

Anyways, back to the OP....

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
I don't see what the big deal here is.

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.

I'd sign it.

Got to agree with that. Redundancy is a fact of life. 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. 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.

I have a feeling we are hearing from the attorney representing some of the people involved who is giving their interpretation - if people want to take that at face value, that's their issue.

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.

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????

a reply to: uncommitted

Correct. Only a very, very long time ago Unions were stronger.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Have you ever even read Consumerist, which is sourced from customers and employees? Or worked in the service industry?

Case in point.

Of course I've worked in the service industry. It sucks. I know it. I'm not denying that at all.

Oh and about your link, did you actually read it?

Parent company URBN Inc. is asking salaried employees to volunteer to work weekends in a Pennsylvania fulfillment center for free, according to an email obtained by Gawker.

Doesn't look like it's a requirement to work without pay for anyone. Heck, the article SPECIFICALLY says that it turned down wage employees because the company would be in violation of labor laws.

“Many hourly employees also offered to pitch in – an offer which we appreciated, but declined in order to ensure full compliance with all applicable labor laws and regulations,” the company told Gawker.

Oh good Lord, and neither are corporations so benevolent and ethical as you might imagine.

Anyways, back to the OP....

That really wasn't the picture I was trying to paint here... I was trying to show that things aren't ever as dire as people like to complain about. That doesn't mean that everything as a result is just peachy. That is the narrative I'm trying to steer you AWAY from. The idea that there are just two sides to an issue. You've created a strawman here by trying to insinuate that JUST because things aren't as bad as everyone likes to say they are, that suddenly means that things are super awesome. That is STILL being simple about the situation, which was the exact opposite of what I wanted you to see.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, I did read the link. And having been a retail operations manger, I know that just means they bullied their salaried workers (for fear of keeping their jobs or putting promotions at risk) into working for free (and diminishing their overall rate of pay) therefore saving themselves the expense of paying hourly workers. My own company pulled that crap everytime we opened a new store. And, really, what the heck did you think Urban would say in their press release, "We were wrong."? LOLZ!

That is STILL being simple about the situation, which was the exact opposite of what I wanted you to see.

Consider me duly lectured on the internet.

a reply to: Edumakated

The bank has $189 billion in assets under management - i.e., check deposits. Meaning other people's money. If you add up all their customer's deposits, it totals $189 billion.

It's been a long time since I worked in a bank, but when I did, loans -- which created revenue -- were "assets," and deposits -- which could be withdrawn at any time -- were "liabilities."

When did this change?

Suntrust is a larger regional bank. They had $8.3 billion in revenue in 2014.

$8.3 billion ain't chump change.

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.