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

Computerworld ^ | 10/19/15 | Patrick Thibodeau

[markomalley]

SunTrust Banks in Atlanta is laying off about 100 IT workers as it moves work offshore. But this layoff is unusual for what it is asking of the soon-to-be displaced workers: The bank's severance agreement requires terminated employees to remain available for two years to provide help if needed, including in-person assistance, and to do so without compensation.

Many of the affected IT employees, who are now training their replacements, have years of experience and provide the highest levels of technical support. The proof of their ability may be in the severance requirement, which gives the bank a way to tap their expertise long after their departure.

The bank's severance 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."

The employees were informed of their layoff at the end of September, and the last day of work for some is on Nov. 1. This is according to several of the affected employees, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.

The severance is seen by affected employees as a requirement to provide ongoing technical assistance as needed. The severance agreement itself says that this assistance from former employees "will be requested at such times and in such a manner so as to not unreasonably interfere with my subsequent employment." An employee shared the severance clause with Computerworld.

[MeshugeMikey]

if they accepted the “The bank’s severance agreement “ they are obliged to fulfil its inane requirements..unless they were coerced into doing so. in which case they could file a criminal complaint

[ConservativeMind]

It's a fallen world we were born into.

His support for the H1-Bs, the TPA (he first campaigned and voted for it, then voted against it when his vote wasn't needed for final passage), and even the Corker Amendment all are meant to help his wife, Heidi, who is on temporary leave from Goldman Sachs.

Before she was at Goldman Sachs, she helped the Council on Foreign Relations with a public paper on the need to expand trade and employment opportunities within the US.

Her CFR paper is here, and she has a special callout near the end with a paragraph of her own additional thoughts:

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

You will also note a brief biographic blurb at the bottom of the linked page. The report is free to download on the left-hand side of that page.

Enjoy.

[dp0622]

just great. i’ll take a look at it.

[dp0622]

Building a North American Community...

I already dont like it.

[Cementjungle]

When I quit my tech job in Philadelphia to move to L.A. where my now wife was (we had been dating long distance, and finally got engaged) I was concerned about keeping at least my health plan until I could land a new job in L.A. So, I offered to "be available for questions" in exchange for keeping the benefits for a few months.

My bosses agreed, but eventually came back to me and said they were afraid of dealing with HR, so they decided to simply keep my on the payroll for 6 months in exchange for my keeping a pager. They also had given me about 8 paid weeks vacation my last year there, but they decided to put in for my full 5 weeks vacation pay as if it had been unused.

Best part was I landed a new job in a month (which I stayed at for 8 years until I retired), and they only ever called me once in the 6 months they kept paying me.

[17th Miss Regt]

If one accepts the deal and takes the severance package and then gets hired by a competitor there is a strong potential of conflict of interest. One would have to explain that and then seek guidance from the current employer. The answer would probably be to tell Sun Trust to pound sand and Sun Trust would be out of luck. Even if it was not a competitor the answer would probably be to pound sand.

Did these Sun Trust dweebs think this through at all?

[ConservativeMind]

Aside from those three things, we have no problems with Ted. We do believe he’s very well intended.

Sadly, they are big enough to consider not voting for him. He did apologize for the TPA vote (and publicly held McConnell’s feet to the fire by calling McConnell a liar), and he had misgivings about voting for the Corker Amendment, but he’s never apologized for wanting many, many more legal immigrants here than we already have.

He’s swallowed the Chamber of Commerce lies hook, line, and sinker, without the normal background work he does on everything else (that’s not what his wife says is “good,” and needs no further examination—just “trust her”).

[tbw2]

I can imagine a smart competitor putting these people on retainer, for a small fee. Do that in return for NEVER being available for SunTrust per a non-compete agreement, and cripple your competitor without spending much money.
Or hire them outright for your own team, in any capacity, and tell SunTrust it can’t call them or that it will bill them a thousand dollars an hour for consulting by their former employees.

[dp0622]

Aside from the three things?!?!

that’s like saying aside from murder, armed robbery, and and loan sharking, al’s a good guy.

i will do my research and see what i come up with.

I may just spend more time sleeping and dreaming about 1980.

[bobby.223]

Good posts CM!!!! I was for Cruz all the way. After those ‘big 3’ sell out points and then the wife angle at GS and her CFR work.... well, I felt like I was kicked in the gut. He fooled me bad I’m not afraid to admit that. (Not the first time a politician has faked me out of my jock either but this time it hurt.)

[ConservativeMind]

Please understand we have all voted for people far worse than Ted. Everything else Ted stands for is good and honestly, he's a solid guy who's never divorced his wife or had a business go bankrupt.

That said, we are voting for Trump, as we believe he will be much more likely to become president and institute at least some of the much-needed change we need in the US. We know he won't do everything we'd like, but he sure has a backbone and stamina that shows he won't easily back down or cave (like Cruz on the TPA and Corker Amendment).

[proxy_user]

“Oh, hi. Yeah, I used to work on that system, but that was six months ago. With my new job in another technology, I’ve kind of forgotten the exact details of how that worked....”

[jospehm20]

Yeah, like the statements he made by voting for cloture on TPA, The Corker Bill and Loretta Lynch’s confirmation? Those probably got twisted too. Right.....

[Uncle Miltie]

“BITE ME” should suffice.

[Myrddin]

My former employer kept places a 20 page "intellectual property agreement" on my desk. It made the company owner of any intellectual property that I ever produce and extended the control over heirs and assigns. I put in in my briefcase and ignored it. Another copy appeared. I stashed every copy for weeks. After 3 months, a general notice was issued that the "agreement" was illegal and unenforceable. I never signed any of the copies that we endlessly dumped on my desk.

Returning to the topic of the thread, the practice of forcing employees to train replacements on pain of not getting a severance is pretty common. If you refuse and the company terminates you, you qualify for unemployment. If agree to the servitude and severance, you've just executed a voluntary quit and the employer has no obligation with respect to unemployment compensation. If you don't do as agreed, the severance payments stop and you have no recourse.

If you have time on the books, go on vacation. You'll collect more money and retain benefits vs taking a lump sum with a higher withholding rate and an immediate termination of benefits. Use the "vacation" time to find another job. Assuming you land one, issue your two week notice and go away.

[vette6387]

“Sounds like servitude to me.”

Try involuntary servitude! Forcing someone to sign such an agreement in order to get paid severance is unlawful. But then it’s a bank, so it’s not unexpected.

[vette6387]

“2. If they thought about it for more than 5 seconds, the idiot bank might realize it’s probably a bad idea to try and force work out of a terminated employee without compensation; especially when that work involves giving the employee access to the computer systems.”

So how about letting yourself be “called back” and treat the bank to a “unfortunate complete crash” of it’s entire computer system. Call it an “Edward Snowden Moment!”

[JennysCool]

Good strategies!

[dp0622]

you’re way behind :)

a million people already let me know and quite frankly, i’m already at the point now where i have to stay home for the election. that was quick

[Jimmy Valentine]

This is not legally enforceable. Also were I hit with this I would if called back show up with a disquette loaded with a virus