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.
a sanity clause? it's Friday, i'm done.
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."
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
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.
I had a similar clause in my severance contract at a previous employer (only 6 months, though), and started getting calls frequently because the guy to whom I handed over decided to quit after a row with my old boss.
I had covered myself by notifying the new employer of the clause during interviews, but suddenly getting 4 or 5 calls a day that took up 1-2 hours of the working day was a problem and as the new guy on the team, I did not have a huge amount of good-will with my team to be able to "slack off" from the team's projects.
The old employer also had a vested interest. Knowing the way my old manager's mind worked, he would have had no problem with making calls to the point where the new employer terminated my contract because of it, so that he could try to rehire me.
My new boss got his legal team talking to the old company, and when the possibility of either legal action or invoicing for my time came up, the call volume dropped to near zero - 2 calls in 3 months, if I recall correctly.
The project they were calling about was well documented, thanks to me and a detail-oriented intern who had been working with me for a couple of months, but these clauses still leave an ex-employee on the hook for a lot of potential problems if they are vaguely worded.
If it wasn't for those kids and their dog?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
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..)
Contracts are frequently thrown out entirely when they contain unconscionable provisions. Having it there might have been better for the employees laid off.
There are other options. When someone needs help, you can always offer them help.
Give them useful advice, say, "Oh, you can't find the bug? Just delete file X and it should fix itself. I remember seeing bugs in there. Call me back if you want more useful advice."
Always give them useful advice, even if you hate them.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
The AC has it right.. If they're THAT corrupt to even consider a policy like this ...
I doubt if the severance agreement was written, or even seen, by the evil hearted CEO. Most likely it was thrown together by some drone in the HR or legal dept.