In turnabout, SunTrust removes contentious severance clause
Source: Computerworld
By Patrick Thibodeau
A controversial severance agreement clause by SunTrust Banks requiring laid-off employees to be available to help without pay, has been removed, the bank said today.
SunTrust is laying off approximately 100 IT employees as it shifts their duties to IT contractors. The employees have been training overseas workers to take their jobs.
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 of 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 full clause is published here.
FULL story at link. See the earlier DU post that sounded the alarm: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027274655
Read more: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2996527/it-outsourcing/in-turnabout-suntrust-removes-contentious-severance-clause.html
We got an offer through AARP and used Sun Trust's LightStream on a new car. We called AARP & LightStream to complain and say we were going to transfer the loan. I guess we won't have to now.
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)First thing I would do after walking out the door is change my phone number.
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)6 months pay and benefits, so I figured I would take a couple of calls while I was sipping some Crown. Then I changed my number a few weeks later.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)Of dirty Conclusiveness on top of that. Doesn't surprise me one bit with their involvement. Them and their crooked Secure Horizon buddies can bite filthy scrotal cheese.
niyad
(112,435 posts)for even THINKING for one minute that the clause was acceptable on ANY level??? how about firing the person who wrote it,and the one who included it in the contract?
47of74
(18,470 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm glad they reversed this.
mwooldri
(10,291 posts)Besides isn't GA a "right to work" state?