Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the time-to-find-something-else-to-be-angry-about dept.

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.

10 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. Stated Intent Means Virtually Nothing by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Stated Intent Means Virtually Nothing by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Stated Intent Means Virtually Nothing by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Stated Intent Means Virtually Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      My wife and I are very hurt you'd tell this story to everyone on Slashdot. We wanted nothing but the best for you Charlie.

    4. Re:Stated Intent Means Virtually Nothing by johanw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

  2. Re:what will replace said clause? by boristdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay...I'll do it.

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

  3. New employer = not happy by Stolpskott · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:New employer = not happy by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  4. Re:Good on them by LVSlushdat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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..)
  5. Re:For free? by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.