
Bank’s severance deal requires IT workers to be on call for two years - dtparr
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2994787/it-careers/bank-s-severance-deal-requires-it-workers-to-be-on-call-for-two-years.html
======
mcv
_employee agrees to "make myself reasonably available" to SunTrust_

and: _The severance agreement itself says that this assistance from former
employees "will be requested at such times and in such a manner so as to not
unreasonably interfere with my subsequent employment."_

I think the "reasonable" and "unreasonable" here severely restricts what the
company can expect here. I mean, if the severance pay is a million bucks each,
"reasonable" is quite a lot, but it seems more likely to be a pittance.

------
norea-armozel
Um yeah, no. I would tell them to take their severance and stuff it.
Seriously, if I'm not being paid for work then I have no legal duty to do the
work. I'd love to see them try to enforce this nonsense clause.

~~~
hwstar
This is Georgia, not California. Employment law in Georgia is very employee-
unfriendly. The company doing the layoffs may fight dirty and threaten to fire
you for cause which prevents you from collecting unemployment.

If you refuse the severance with support requirements attached, be prepared to
fight and have plenty of money in the bank to live off of, because they'll try
to make an example out of you.

~~~
Shivetya
Regardless of state, the requirement to work with compensation is illegal and
the whole severance deal was either crafted by idiots or simply hoping for
idiots to sign it anyway.

~~~
hwstar
I think the bank's lawyers would beg to differ. The "compensation" is
"consideration" for accepting the requirement to support them. Again, this all
boils down to the employee being at a significant disadvantage to the employer
in that the severance funds are required to put food on the table.

~~~
norea-armozel
No it doesn't. 13th amendment trumps their lawyery wishing and such. Trust me,
only the federal govt can compel you to work as an exemption to the 13th
amendment (case law supports this situation).

~~~
hwstar
You may be correct on case law, but just the threat of a lawsuit can coerce a
poorly financed ex-employee into doing something against their wishes to save
on having to hire a lawyer. This coercion is what needs to be discouraged.

