Slashdot Mirror
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.
You shouldn't cancel your disgust because they backpedeled on this ONLY after the internet "took them to the woodshed". The fact that they came up with such an insane clause in their severance IN THE FIRST PLACE wouldn't do a thing to remove *my* disgust with them. I don't live in an area where they have branches, so I really couldn't close any accounts I might have with them, but as for my disgust, its completely up and running quite well, thank you very much... God Damn Fucking banks... So glad *my* money has been in credit unions for over 30 years...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Exactly. I started employment with a new web/software development company several years ago. After I had been there over a year and they had grown some, I was told I needed to sign a non-compete agreement. I forget the exact wording, but it was to the effect of any related field of employment within the area would be prohibited for an extended period of time. It was about that vague.
We were primarily a web development company, but did general purpose development too for corporations, non-profits, agencies...you name it. Prohibiting me from "competing" with them would basically rule out any type of development work in the area. Since that had been my entire career up to that point, I refused to sign.
Eventually the owner/my boss demanded why I wouldn't sign it. I told him that it was way too overly broad and while I was very confident that it wasn't legally enforceable on the grounds that I have a right to earn a living, I rather just not sign it to remove all ambiguity. He said that he was very hurt that I would think that he (and his wife who co-owned the company) would attempt to use it that way. I simply pointed out that it didn't matter how I thought they would use it, all that mattered was how they could use it.
It turned out that they had copied it from some website and never ran it by an actual lawyer. Once they did that and the lawyer said that it was a worthless agreement, it was never mentioned again.
I was fired by an employer with a long track record of constantly calling former employees about matters they were involved in. Fortunately at the time I had the sense to not give this employer my home number but a number than rang in my home office only. Once terminated I simply unplugged that phone for a couple of months. I was available, they just couldn't reach me. At the time cell phones were around, but not to the extent they are today.
Some company tried to enforce that clause in The Netherlands after THEY fired someone. When it came to court, the judge ordered that they could enforce it, but then they had to pay the former employee full salary for doing nothing at home because it would prevent him from getting a job. Suddenly the clause was dropped...