Please lock.

EDIT. Given what I know now, I cannot in good conscience allow this topic to continue. Thanks to @bmanva for informing me on this (his post is on the second page). Please lock this thread.

Well this is a new low from a shitty corporation. A company names SunTrust fired 100 IT employees and not only had them train their replacements, but also put it in their severance agreements that they were to remain available on call to provide support for the next two years.

Personally this is the easily the shittiest thing I have seen a company try to do in a quite a while. To me it's a sign of giving corporations nearly all the power in a country that anyone would try to pull bs like this.

Anyways your thoughts on this?

http://gizmodo.com/tell-us-your-stories-about-your-worst-it-job-ever-1737568292

That's pretty much illegal isn't it?

The struggle is real.

If everybody just worked for free we wouldn't have an unemployment problem.

I dunno about anyone else, But I was put in that position then I'd pretty much do poor work or sabotage for the company if they called.
For the sake that they can't exactly fire me again for doing lousy work.

The problem is they need that severance, but to get it they need to sign. They need to take their ass to court, and fight for their severance without that shitty plan on being available. They are nuts. A judge would make them pay, bu then the attorneys will take lots of their dough. This is outrageous, very sad to hear/see this.

I would have them call the bar association. They will get a kick out of this, and might even take the case as a pro bono.

If you don't get blackmail on your employer as soon as you get a new job then that's your own fault. Everyone and everyplace has skellys in the closet and once you find it you are teflon. Ignore this advice at your own risk.

An employer has the right to fire you at whatever time for what ever reason. It's usually "At will."

Why would they sign that shitty severance agreement? Its pretty standard for employees to train their replacements, but remaining on call for 2 years? Apparently the terms of their severance out weighed that shit aspect.

Anyhoo, the company is still shit for it. I'd like to see how they have working mandate for 'non' employees. How can you force someone to work if they're not you're employee? I'm assuming they just take back the severance pay (which is probably shit).

Yeah, it's technically a cooperation agreement NOT being "on call" as the article says (and even worse how it's put in the title of this thread). Basically you have some level of knowledge on their product/infrastructure/etc and in the case where they need to ask you something they should be able to reach out to you and be 'reasonably' available and as to not interfere with your current life/employment. It's also almost certainly not an enforceable clause, and if the former employee decided to never answer their call I don't think the company would have any real recourse.

Should it even be there? I dunno, I can see where the company is coming from and under more amicable circumstances it's not a big deal. I can also get how the people who were just fired feel like it's trying to get something from them even after they are gone...but I don't think that's really the intention.

Anyways, I think the clause is benign and it's being made into much more than it really is.

I've had to sign (well, technically, I agreed to) employment contracts with clauses that I consider much worse. The most common is essentially rights to any invention/program/intellectual property/etc I create while employed for said company even if it has absolutely nothing to do with that company, the things I am working for at that company, have done in my own spare time, and/or is in an entirely different industry. Some of these I've signed even go up to 2 years after leaving the company.

sign the agreement, get your severance, and change your phone number / email.

good luck trying to get in touch with me when your network switches crash.

Totally agree, but corporations fucking everybody is something the tea party is fighting hard for.

Yes, but the company could retaliate in other even more harmful ways, such as by giving scurrilously bad references that would ruin your career.

It's futile to resist a company, let alone a corporation. The judges are all in their thrall---or in their pockets.

Well there will be no way I would work properly assuming I would come at all if they called me. What are they going to do? Fire me? lol

Similarly, a buddy of mine works in a car shop that offers warranties on everything they sell/do, but if a customer comes in with something that's covered by the warranty the employee isn't paid for the time spent doing that work. He's shifted all the risk of the warranty onto his employees.

I told him that's illegal (wage theft), but he considers it a breach of his Libertarian ideals to bring the law into it.

Then don't list them as references or simply state they didn't wish to be available to provide reference.

@Serraph105: in soviet russia, workers fire YOU

I don't think you actually understand what happened in the hot coffee case.

Does anyone know if declining severance like this would disqualify someone for applying for unemployment? Granted if the deal is THAT bad would they be able to still have some income given they decline it? Its easy to say 'Don't sign a bad deal', but what if that deal is a must or else they straight up won't have any income until they find employment again?

Holy shit people need to just grow some backbone.

This is why unions happen, because corporations can be assholes.

@thegerg: Hardly matters what the case exactly is. Their point stands, people have sued for some really stupid things and have gotten away with it.

I don't think you realize how hard it is out there still to find a good job, especially a job that likely pays well (like IT at a bank like SunTrust). There is little room out there (in the US, at least) for points to be made, principles to be enforced, and so forth.

Ever since the economy tanked, employers have realized they can scare workers into doing the work of multiple people, and put in overtime without actually being paid for it. Why go back to pre-crash work standards (ideal) when the sad, despicable truth is that people are still frightened into living with post-crash standards (the sad reality).

In this case, you have a bunch of likely-young IT professionals, college-educated, that are dependent not only on income from this job, but a good reference as well. They are not looking to rock the boat because there are very few jobs available in the high-competitive tech field. You go off and do something hostile like take your employer to court, it makes you not look like a viable candidate for your next job.

There's an update on the article the OP linked:

[UPDATE] We received a statement from SunTrust Banks on the severance policy: “It is a rare occasion when we need to call a former employee. The ‘continuing cooperation’ clause in our severance agreements is designed to assist the company under scenarios that arise infrequently when we need access to knowledge possessed by a former employee, primarily related to regulatory or legal matters. 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.”

Sounds like it is basically a little bit of fine print that someone actually read and then freaked out about; this is found in pretty much every contract. I mean if we took the time to read the agreements we blindly click "agree" to we'd find some alarming stuff as well (we don't actually own the game, the publisher can revoke our license to the game at any time for no reason, etc)...it does not mean those things will be enforced.

I generally will condemn a corporation before the employee, but this is a little "boy who cried wolf" I think; obviously people are pissed they were fired and have a right to be, but I think someone just read a little too much into the fine print and assumed that since it was in there it would happen.

Banking in America does not have a good reputation.

United States presidents have spoken about this throughout the history of the U.S.A. Thomas Jefferson was against a federal bank, Andrew Jackson fought them, and John F. Kennedy did as well. Giving them too much power has been thought of as the loss of liberty.

I don't know whether that's ever happened in Russia, but it did happen in India in 2011. I remember that there was quite a lively debate about the incident here in OT at the time.

New Delhi, India (CNN) -- Workers, angry at being fired, burned alive a senior executive of a steel factory in eastern India, police said Friday.

The attack on R.S. Roy, a deputy general manager at the Graphite India Limited's steel unit in Orissa state, took place Thursday after he signed termination letters for about a dozen workers, police said.

The angry workers stopped Roy's car and attacked him -- before setting him and the car on fire, said police superintendent Ajay Kumar Sarangi.

...

Full CNN Article

I guess his luxury car's air conditioner was no match for burning gasoline. :-/

That's a lie. You're implying that there are jobs in Russia.

Why would someone have to continue associating with a former place of employment for two fucking years post-severance? I don't care for the clarification the corporation provided; the mere thought that I'm still stuck is enough of a bane to me.

The U.S has an itching desire to revive slavery.