5 ms·

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 f

by hwstar 11y ago

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 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      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.
- mcv 11y ago
  It's possible that the severance pay is high enough to be considered reasonable compensation. Not likely, considering the apparent business practices of the bank, but possible.
norea-armozel 11y ago
Georgia's state employment laws don't override federal laws in regards to labor. The clause in question isn't like the no-compete clauses seen in employment contracts since those clauses don't technically impede your right to work (or not). It's probably why the clause the bank has language that says they'll call upon you if it doesn't impede your current employment since this would go against other firms which would put them in a situation where they may or may not see a big firm (possibly as big as them) taking them to court for such interference in their employee's obligations(A slave cannot have two masters as it were).
- hwstar 11y ago
  I don't see this as a Federal issue as much as I see it as a State issue. Chances are you are going to be unemployed for a long stretch, especially if you are 40+. If you take the severance, and refuse to support them, they could technically take you to court and attempt to claw back the severance. In California, the courts would quash this, but in Georgia, the courts would likely favour the employer. Obviously, if you become employed in short order, then the needs of your employer are going to override the support requirement. I think that the bank has made a bet here that the people who were let go may not ever be employed again. Additionally, if the person is re-employed elsewhere, it's much more costly to fight a well-financed employer, vs. a poorly financed employee. This all stems from the fact the employer-employee relationship is not balanced with respect to labour laws grossly favouring the employer over the employees. The US is a third world country when it comes to labour law. Most of the governments in developed world would not tolerate this.
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    Because federal law stipulates that you must be compensated for work done. No salary or wage? No work done. It's pretty straight forward as it also violates the 13th amendment where slavery was abolished. You can't demand labor without compensation as a private party. It doesn't matter if Georgian law allows it since it cannot trump the federal amendment. Or in simpler terms: the South shall never rise again.

by hwstar 11y ago

Shivetya 11y ago

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 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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.
mcv 11y ago
It's possible that the severance pay is high enough to be considered reasonable compensation. Not likely, considering the apparent business practices of the bank, but possible.

norea-armozel 11y ago

Georgia's state employment laws don't override federal laws in regards to labor. The clause in question isn't like the no-compete clauses seen in employment contracts since those clauses don't technically impede your right to work (or not). It's probably why the clause the bank has language that says they'll call upon you if it doesn't impede your current employment since this would go against other firms which would put them in a situation where they may or may not see a big firm (possibly as big as them) taking them to court for such interference in their employee's obligations(A slave cannot have two masters as it were).

hwstar 11y ago
I don't see this as a Federal issue as much as I see it as a State issue. Chances are you are going to be unemployed for a long stretch, especially if you are 40+. If you take the severance, and refuse to support them, they could technically take you to court and attempt to claw back the severance. In California, the courts would quash this, but in Georgia, the courts would likely favour the employer. Obviously, if you become employed in short order, then the needs of your employer are going to override the support requirement. I think that the bank has made a bet here that the people who were let go may not ever be employed again. Additionally, if the person is re-employed elsewhere, it's much more costly to fight a well-financed employer, vs. a poorly financed employee. This all stems from the fact the employer-employee relationship is not balanced with respect to labour laws grossly favouring the employer over the employees. The US is a third world country when it comes to labour law. Most of the governments in developed world would not tolerate this.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  Because federal law stipulates that you must be compensated for work done. No salary or wage? No work done. It's pretty straight forward as it also violates the 13th amendment where slavery was abolished. You can't demand labor without compensation as a private party. It doesn't matter if Georgian law allows it since it cannot trump the federal amendment. Or in simpler terms: the South shall never rise again.