Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

I see a lot of new jobs posted from Intel showing up on the job boards

I'm not so sure it is radically shrinking....with all the new hires (RCGs and H1Bs) being reported at the various sites.

Of course, the specific criteria for an ISP changed from 2015 to 2016 - because they had to shed many, many more people in 2016. Thus, they had to move further and further into levels of performance that, under neutral or growth circumstances, wouldn't be cut.

But Intel isn't currently growing or staying neutral - it's radically shrinking. That's an entirely different ballgame.

It doesn't matter what language they use to describe the levels, what matters is their relative value.

@zgd: Agree with everything you are saying. Bottom line is that BK and his minions don't give a dam* about their employees anymore. Intel has become a totally shiy company to work for. Even if you weren't offered a package, my recommendation is to get the he out of there ASAP. Start looking for another job now and make it happen. BK is not transparent in any way whatsoever (even though he keeps saying he is). Who wants to stay there?

"Last year's use of the ratings and stock grants to determine an ISP were likely a surprise to one's manager. But this year? Is it logical that they didn't recognize that likelihood?"

Yes, it is logical and a fact that many managers did not realize that one SSL4/5 was enough for an employee to get axed. Last year, it had to be two out of the last three years. So for any employee that got their first low SSL this year, it was a rude awakening. There were many employees that got a low SSL last year and were able to make it through both of the cuts from last year and this year because they did not meet the layoff criteria of low SSL two out of the last three years for last year's layoff or one low SSL for this year.

It is obvious that Intel will be changing the rules every single year going forward. And yes, the managers don't know what the rules are until the layoffs happen.

Yes, its true that Stock levels were never considered to be indicator of performance!

There was one such category - it was called Below Expectations (BE). And before that there was also a trend given along with the rating (Trending Above,EQual & Trending below). Managers would give clear indication of the employees performance at focal - and even before focal if the employee was deemed to be trending badly.

And if stock is an indicator of performance, then it should be in the Intel handbook stating clearly that its a lower performance if you get SSL4 or SSL5. Where does it say that in the Intel handbook? Last time I looked, I didnt see that.

The way Intel is doing things, its hiding behind a lot of ambiguity - so it can say whatever it wants to a laid of employee!

Typically lower performing employees used to be told early and given time to improve - since neither is given now, its just a lower SSL and boom you are gone right after focal every year in April-July. That is the shock that most older laid-off employees are facing.

So that begs the question - why the 'no-rehire' policy? Its not like anyone who got laid-off wants to come back to Intel - believe me its easier to just find something else outside. But to be treated like a criminal just because some manager decided to give a lower stock level is degrading and insulting the employees who gave their sweat and blood to Intel for decades. (25 years back, Intel was hardly 40K people and helped Intel grow to the levels it is now ).

Kudos for at least coming up with a NEW doomed approach to suing Intel.

Defamation: An intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name. Holding up of a person to ridicule, scorn or contempt in a respectable and considerable part of the community; may be criminal as well as civil. Includes both libel and slander.

Except what has Intel actually said about you? They've said that your rating at your Focal was [such] - which is true (however unfair you might consider your manger to have been). Or that you've been in your position for [X] years - which is true (no matter why that came to pass).

Intel itself hasn't used the language you've suggested. They've merely said that, relative to your peers, in the judgment of your manager, you received [such] rating. That rating was then used - as ratings sometimes are - in the layoff process. (There has to be SOME sweeping methodology to a large layoff. This was Intel's.)

I went to law school. They graded us on a bell curve. Every semester, they gave out X number of A's - and they flunked out an equal [X] number of students. Every semester. On the first day, they said, "Look to your left. Look to your right. One of you won't be graduating." They had no problem with telling us that we were competing with all our classmates - that a third of us weren't going to make it. SOMEONE was always going to have to be at the bottom of the class - and that new bottom rung was going to consist of people who had previously made the cut. We were part of an ever-decreasing group of people who had worked hard to GET in - and who were working hard to stay in. We were all intelligent people - we'd gotten that far - but some of us were doing better-than. And, yes, that's brutal. But it was the classic law school system. Sometimes systems are brutal.

Last year's use of the ratings and stock grants to determine an ISP were likely a surprise to one's manager. But this year? Is it logical that they didn't recognize that likelihood?

They didn't want to let you go at all - they already had methods for firing underperforming employees - but they had to make their Sophie's Choice. They had to cut out what would, in a "normal" year, be healthy flesh. And it probably pained them to see you go. But they weren't in control of that edict. Are you kidding? Managers tend to believe they need MORE help, not less. They didn't WANT to lose you, but your former managers are part of what's now a brutal system. Just as their managers are.

"Award based on you being a bad performer was SSL4/5.

FIRST CONDITION met BAD PERFORMER.

That is not mistreatment."

If that were only the case. People got SSL4/5 for all sorts of reasons unrelated to performance.

Award based on you being a bad performer was SSL4/5.

FIRST CONDITION met BAD PERFORMER.

That is not mistreatment.

There's no reason that a future Intel CEO couldn't reverse the policy. And maybe even make Intel a worthwhile and enjoyable place to work again.

I agree! We need to work with lawyers. SSL was supposed to be like an award or incentive. It was not supposed to be used as a ruler to fire people.

My issue with being ISP is not being laid off, my issue is that they put a label of under performers on us, undesirable, etc. Where in fact, I am sure that at least the SSL4 employees ranked in the top half at focal , especially the ones that got pay raises above the average.

So any idea for legal battles against Intel would be for defamation of character.

No, but if there's wrong-doing, then it needs to be addressed!

At-will employment does not mean you can treat people badly - if there are more than 100 or so employees in a company, and the company has an employee hand-book, then they are supposed to follow that! So if you call someone a successful, you cannot say also that person is an under-performer when so many other successful employees didnt get laid off.

I don't understand who really care about the answer to the question. When you divorce, do you think about the possibility of remarrying with the same person?

so managers knew that giving SSL4/5 would lead eventually to a layoff? I have read many posts here where employees are saying that their manager said they didnt know the significance of giving a SSL4/5.

Question for @HQN9ESr-fun.

Can Intel literally make up these rules as they go along and its all considered 'legal'? I see so many people who got SSL4 and SSL5 in previous years who are still in the company. It seems to me that the 'no-rehire' policy is disproportionately affecting those who got ISP-ed in 2016.

The other issue is the idea that someone is under-performing based on their stock level when they have been given a 'Successful'. Can this be questioned under the EEOC labor laws?

They don't want you, please go away. Stop embarrassing yourself. This kind of thinking is probably why they don't want you. Of coarse you can't come back. They Broke Up with you, now find somebody else to support your pansy ass

"I was previously laid off by Intel" isn't a constitutionally protected class.

Except under very particular circumstances, they can't refuse to hire you based on race, religion, gender, etc. Any of the protected classes. But, other than something along those lines, they can make a legally valid argument.

And, just as they make those rules for themselves, they can choose to break them for themselves, if the spirit so moves them. Just as they can choose to change the criteria for ISPs and the severance packages.

I think the perspective problem arises because people conflate their personal experience of "this seems wrong" (because of how it affects THEM) with "this seems illegal." For "illegal," you look to labor law - and discover just how little is "illegal" in an At Will situation.

my understanding is neither green nor blue, am I wrong?

During my last phone interview with HR, "HR Joe" mentioned that ISP's can be rehired as green. That is, if your profile is clean. But hey, if you're good enough at what you do, your new manager could probably pull some strings and get you back in the fray.

I'm happy it is there. It prevents you from making the same mistake twice. When Intel splits you will be able to go back, if you love the pain.