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

Ban k's severance deal requires IT workers to be on call for two years

Employees said SunTrust requires laid-off IT workers to be available to help by phone or in person -- without additional pay.

Isn't that special? It must be because they just can't get quality workers here in the states, right? Wrong.

SunTrust Banks in Atlanta is laying off about 100 IT workers as it moves work offshore... [snip]... Many of the affected IT employees, who are now training their replacements, have years of experience and provide the highest levels of technical support.

And what's this?

However, if the company called them and did not pay them, that is "a clear violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act"...

Obviously, fair labor standards and a fair wage for a day's labor are not SunTrust's priority anyway.... just finding ways to do the exact opposite. So much for a free-market principles, eh?

Hmmm... well, SunTrust must have some reasonable explanation, right? Except, well, they just don't want to share their good reasons...

SunTrust, with about $189 billion in assets, declined to discuss the severance, and a spokesman said the company isn't commenting on its "HR policies or procedures."

So, to recap, a major corporation with $189 billion in assets, decides to replace their workers with foreign workers not protected by labor laws, who are so impoverished and desperate that they are willing to accept any wage, using the soon-to-be-replaced workers to train the new workers, and then demand that their severed workers provide free future labor... they sure have a lot of confidence in their new workforce, eh?

This is absolutely shameful and unconscionable. But clearly anyone who would do this has no shame or conscience, so I apologize for being redundant.

There are some excellent comments after the article -- well worth reading.

(FYI: All bolding in the quotes above was added by me.)

The only new thing here is the amount of time. Very similar to how American IBMers starting over 10 years ago had to train their replecements in other countries after they were told they were out in 90 days and that their severence depended on it or they were mindwaashed to believe if the cooperated it might save their job. Lies.

Point being, these companies get away with this for almost two decades because we let them as workers have no protection or unions and beause it never matters until it happens to you.

There's got to be more to this story. How exactly would SunTrust enforce this?

It says without 'additional pay' which leads me to believe the workers received a sizable lump sum payout maybe?

It sucks either way.

The very large company I work for got rid of the IT department and outsourced everything. It lasted less than 2 years you have to have people you can understand on the phone. When they promised an English speaking person if requested the game was over. The onsite IT people are all locals and the call center is now down the road 2 miles. We WON!!

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The only new thing here is the amount of time.

Sadly, you're right... very sadly.

But I think -- I hope -- that is changing. As more and more people get screwed over one way or another by the craptastic collusion of corpsters and congress critters, the outrage is growing.

And I'm happy to pile on

originally posted by: yeahright
There's got to be more to this story. How exactly would SunTrust enforce this?

It says without 'additional pay' which leads me to believe the workers received a sizable lump sum payout maybe?

It sucks either way.

I would say there's definitely more to the story... that SunTrust doesn't want us to know! If I am misjudging them, they better speak up, or their actions will have to speak for themselves.

If I read the article right, no one has received anything yet; any severence pay is dependent upon them agreeing to work for free in the future.

And, yeah, it does suck.

a reply to: Boadicea

Lol, If I worked for a company that tried to do this, I'd throw that severance agreement in the trash. It's unenforceable, has no benefit to me, and requires me to go out of my way for a company that I don't work for. Psh. Forget that, what are they going to do if I hang up the phone on the company when they call me for assistance? Fire me? HA! They already did that.

The balls on Suntrust are ENORMOUS. To think they think they can get away with laying off employees then forcing them to sign a contract forcing them into unpaid compensation on top of that is just outstanding...

a reply to: Boadicea

Well they're really not working for free if they get 2 years' salary. As bad as it sucks, it's not like you'd be working for free for two years. If it's two years' pay to be on call and the latitude to look for employment elsewhere during that time...

I hate it, but I've seen much worse deals. Ho about two weeks' severance and then you're on your own?

originally posted by: mikell
The very large company I work for got rid of the IT department and outsourced everything. It lasted less than 2 years you have to have people you can understand on the phone. When they promised an English speaking person if requested the game was over. The onsite IT people are all locals and the call center is now down the road 2 miles. We WON!!

Woo hoo! Yippee! Huzzah!!!

That's really awesome... and thank you for the heads up. This is practical and simple action all of us can take: Any time you find yourself speaking with a foreign worker on a customer service call, demand a native English speaker, and express your dissatisfaction to the corporate offices of the company itself, then take your business elsewhere.

People Power

a reply to: ~Lucidity

It's more than just requiring the old employees to train their replacements. It's requiring them to actually be on call while no longer employed at the company for an additional two YEARS after their layoff date. So 6 months down the line, you have a new IT job and Suntrust calls you out of the blue to get assistance with some application that you serviced while working for them. According to this severance "agreement" (I put that in quotes because it should really be called coercion) they'd have to actually HELP Suntrust with their issue AND not be able to seek compensation for their time and effort. It's pseudo-slave labor.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Lol, I worked for a company that tried to do this, I'd throw that severance agreement in the trash.

Me too... but only after I shared a few choice words with them

It's unenforceable, has no benefit to me, and requires me to go out of my way for a company that I don't work for. Psh. Forget that, what are they going to do if I hang up the phone on the company when they call me for assistance? Fire me? HA! They already did that.

I am almost hoping that someone accepts the severance package as presented, then refuses to provide that free labor, and fights SunTrust tooth and nail if they dare pursue legal remedies... let the whole country see. But that's a lot to ask of anyone, and especially middle class workers who don't have the time and resources to take on a giant.

The balls on Suntrust are ENORMOUS. To think they think they can get away with laying off employees then forcing them to sign a contract forcing them into unpaid compensation on top of that is just outstanding...

Nothing to add here... I just thought that was worth highlighting and repeating!

a reply to: Boadicea

Yea, it's bull#. If Suntrust knows what's good for them, now that this blunder has been leaked to the media, they better start recanting their agreements, because only bad press can result from this now if they proceed.

If you are given two years severance pay, technically you are still an employee for those two years. No further pay would be required. Here is a simple question. Would you really want someone, that you laid off, to work on your computers?

originally posted by: yeahright
a reply to: Boadicea

Well they're really not working for free if they get 2 years' salary. As bad as it sucks, it's not like you'd be working for free for two years. If it's two years' pay to be on call and the latitude to look for employment elsewhere during that time...

Maybe... maybe not. As I understand it, many companies require IT workers to agree to a non-competition clause prohibiting their concurrent IT work for another company, due to proprietary code and stuff like that I don't really understand. The only way some IT workers might be able to accept such a deal is if they literally paid the equivalence of two years salary and benefits.

Ho about two weeks' severance and then you're on your own?

At least I would own my future.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Yea, it's bull#. If Suntrust knows what's good for them, now that this blunder has been leaked to the media, they better start recanting their agreements, because only bad press can result from this now if they proceed.

Agreed. And I'm happy to do my part to share the news...

The ball's in SunTrust's court now.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

Would you really want someone, that you laid off, to work on your computers?

Of course not! So... the obvious conclusion is that SunTrust is either stupid or too big for their britches, and I'm going with the latter. I believe the crony capitalism has gotten so blatant and out of control that too many corporations think they can do no wrong. I also believe that the court of public opinion can change that.

I guess we'll all find out together

SunTrust replied to the story.

SunTrust statement: It is a rare occasion when we need to call a former employee. The “continuing cooperation” clause is designed to assist the company under scenarios that arise infrequently when we need access to knowledge possessed by a former employee. Those scenarios primarily relate to regulatory or legal matters. For instance, we may need to reach out to former employees to ensure we accurately understand situations in which they were involved while employed by the company. SunTrust has never used this provision to require a former employee to be “on call” to help conduct day-to-day business in any way.

Though to be honest with you. I'd tell the company that I'd forgot.
And might remember if there's a check on it's way with a 1 plus more than 3 0's on the line.

a reply to: Boadicea

What are they doing that is wrong? Sun is breaking no laws. I've been laid off before. There is no guarantee that it won't happen again. I even went back to work for a company that laid me off.

Non-compete clauses are typically not enforceable at all but the highest level executives and even then they typically won't hold up.

In this case, Suntrust is probably concerned that they some knowledge might be lost. What they should have done is offer to pay for consulting work. No one at the level of these employees is going to be "on call". It simply isn't practical.

You go get some lower level IT job and then a year later, Suntrust calls asking you for help. You just can't drop what you are doing as your current employer is going to be like WTF?

While I find this behavior by companies somewhat deplorable, I also understand why they make these decisions. Banking is a relatively low margin business, particularly for commercial banks like SunTrust. Companies are constantly having to look for ways to cut costs. The people whining about this banks actions are the first to penny pinch or jump ship to a cheaper competitor. Consumers don't often connect the dots as to how looking for the cheapest price can have longer term consequences. The bank probably has $189 billion in consumer deposits, not sitting on $189 billion in cash. The article mentions this to make it seem like the bank is just being greedy.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Boadicea

What are they doing that is wrong? Sun is breaking no laws.

Hmmm... Since I didn't exactly mince words in the OP, I'm pretty sure you know, and just don't agree. That's okay. I will suffice it to say that despite the "legality" of their actions under color of crony capitalist law, it violates both the letter and spirit of a free-market and our natural rights. If you think it's okay to coerce distressed about-to-be-jobless employees in this way, then good to know. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I've been laid off before. There is no guarantee that it won't happen again. I even went back to work for a company that laid me off.

I'm not sure how this is pertinent. Lots of people have been laid off and been free to move forward and continue providing for their families without vague demands on their future time and labor...