In Turnabout, SunTrust Removes Contentious Severance Clause (computerworld.com)

dcblogs writes: SunTrust has removed a controversial severance clause requiring laid-off employees to be 'reasonably available' to help without pay during the two years after their employment ends, the bank said today. The severance agreements received by employees included a "continuing cooperation" clause requiring each worker "to make myself reasonably available to SunTrust regarding matters in which I have been involved in the course my employment with SunTrust and/or about which I have knowledge as a result of my employment with SunTrust." Bank IT employees believed this broadly worded clause was essentially an on-call provision, requiring them to provide technical help as needed without additional pay. The bank disputed that interpretation, and said the intent was to limit such help to legal matters. The bank, in a statement released late Friday morning, had a change of heart, and said it would be removed from the severance agreements.

Comments

Stated Intent Means Virtually Nothing

[American AC in Paris]

If a party to a contract puts language into a contract, the only safe assumption you can make is that said party wants to some day be able to do that thing.

The only appropriate response to "oh, we'd never actually do that" is "then remove it."

Re:Stated Intent Means Virtually Nothing

[avandesande]

No. Illegal contracts are not enforceable. If I sign a contract saying I will work for less than minimum wage my employer is still liable for minimum wage laws. It doesn't matter in this case that you would be working for free.

Re:what will replace said clause?

[boristdog]

Okay...I'll do it.

Don't be silly, there ain't no such thing as Sanity Clause!

For free?

[MrLogic17]

I'm happy to be available to a previous employer - at my standard consulting rate. They can pay the going rate, just like everyone else.

The notion that I should be available to work for free, after leaving, for 2 years? Insane.

Re:For free?

[tlhIngan]

I think at that point, I'd totally destroy anything I touched, you know, 'accidentally'...

"oops? Well, it's been awhile since I left, and to be honest, you get what you pay for. See ya."

I think you alluded to, but not quite described the REAL reason this clause was dropped.

Not because you accidentally dropped the customer accounts table, but liability. Imagine the bank goes down for a couple of days because of a systems failure. Some people will be upset, and may hire lawyers to sniff around. You think those lawyers will let the fact that non-employees are accessing the bank's systems go unchallenged? For all the lawyers know, they're going to run with the fact that the bank used non-cleared employees who may have caused the issue to worsen. Instead of the bank going down for the day, the bank called in non-employees who had full access to sensitive data, and who very well could've made the problem worse - instead of being able to fix it in a few hours, the non-employees made the bank go down for a couple of days.

I'd say the lawyers would have a field day.

OK, Now I might believe the company...

[mhkohne]

Didn't actually intend anything nefarious. Just the usual over-reaching language by a lawyer who doesn't really do anything that matters.

You'd think that after all these bad-pr-because-our-lawyers-need-muzzles incidents, companies would hire someone to keep an eye on the lawyers. The amount of time, effort (and therefore money) they spend cleaning up these messes isn't small.

Re:New employer = not happy

[jandrese]

Why not simply stop answering their calls? What are they going to do? Double fire you? I'd like to see them take you to court over not providing work for free.