Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

It is pretty simple really - did Intel break the law ? ( which it has done many times in the past in other settings ). This is purely a business issue -- just as Intel treated the layoffs as purely business, so the courts need determine if the law was violated and if so, there is usually restitution. Intel was extremely dispassionate about the layoffs - and so treat Intel exactly the same ! Intel did not take into account the pain and suffering it has caused in cutting short deserving careers and so Intel needs receive no consideration for its own pain and suffering that the courts may return. Having said this - BK and co. continue to milk the system for all it is worth - they'll likely laugh all the way to the bank having 'gotten theirs' - if they don't do so already. This is purely business, the poster below who said 'please lay me off' -- is beyond clueless.

@1axg. Obviously ERP targeted those 55+ plus, but one could argue, why target that demographic with the first exit offers in the first place? Back in the old days in US industry, the HC cut/layoff rule was first in, first out. Seniority counted for something. Now, seniority is a liability. It puts a target on your back. Second, the VSP/ISP list. I saw it. Because I was of the age and a VSP, by law they had to provide it to me. All the ISPs/VSPs were overwhelmingly over 40, most over 50. Why? Probably the focal system and just the natural progression of careers--to wit, the more senior you are, the longer your tenure, the more likely you have topped out and no longer have EEs and Os. The term they used in the QGS was "stagnant" employees. This was particularly the case with the nonstars--the admins, the support people, the tribal knowledge people, the more modest people who do great everyday work but don't know how to beat their own drum or jump from org to org. In many ways, and for once real and intentional purposes, the focal system culls to favor movers and shakers, not steady performers. I am not saying that is bad, but is is a fact. Focal also makes people compete against their own teammates for rank. Ironically, as part of that weird focal dynamic, you are right that my taking the ERP probably 'saved' someone else. Welcome to the Hunger Games.

I do not understand why some people are calling the ERP age discrimination. You HAVE TO BE at least age 55 to hit the lesser of the rules - Rule of 55 (55 + 15 yrs service). Duh. (some people think the only retirement rule is the Rule of 75. It's not, folks).

To ME they were being NICE (yeah, you heard me right) by offering a really REALLY good package to anyone eligible to retire in hopes some that had been considering it (like me), or those that might not have realized they were even eligible the chance to put some money in their pockets, pay for their medical, AND help others out that can't be without a job from being ISPed (or whatever else you want to call all the actions coming down the pike) in order to hit their 11% target!!!!

I feel like I helped someone in need of their job by taking the ERP. That's 1 less head that needs to be cut. The more people that took ERP, the less that have to leave involuntarily. Glass half full, glass half empty. I choose to look at the ERP as a good thing, not some plot against those over age 55. I am thankful that it was offered and I took it, and HAPPILY I might add. Very, very happily.

The no-rehire policy might have a shot for litigation. I don't know what the separation agreement was. Intel (at least in OR) is a free will state (i.e., they can ask you to leave at anytime for no reason), but I don't see how they can ban employees (unless there was Cause) from returning for future employment. Very weird. This one has the best chance of legal challenge. But do you really want to go back?

All the ERPers had to sign an agreement that they would never participate in any suit re: age discrimination. I suppose someone who didn't sign that agreement and didn't take the settlement would be free to press charges. This is not unique. I was terminated from a position ( long before Intel) when I was only 55 (acquistion redundancy, no performance issues) and had to sign off to get the payout back then too. The lawsuit with the anti-competitive poaching case against Intel/Apple/Google was not the same. That was an antitrust collusion to suppress job competition and salaries that employees were not even actively aware of. Even there, the settlement was so arbitrary, depending on how HR classified you during the offending time period. Case in point, some web developers were classified as 'technical' in the HR system of record, others were not, even while doing the same job. It depended how / where the org had HC. So some folks got a nice settlement and others got a goose egg.

Everyone needs to file a complaint to EEOC age and race because old white guys were targeted.

I'm being serious. If nothing else, Intel needs the bad PR to not try this targeting in the future.

OP has a great question. It doesn't make sense this hasn't happened yet. We'll see.

BK is an evil, stupid man who has not delivered on any of his promises to the BoD, yet he is held to a different standard than all the people that had been laid off. He should have been fired long ago. By keeping him in the CEO role, the results will not change.

I think a good lawyer will dig into H1B laws as well. How many groups let go US Citizens, Green Card holders in favor of keeping H1Bs. Also, the scam run into looking for qualified US Citizens before hiring H1Bs. This is nothing against hardworking, decent H1Bs, but the HR scammers breaking US labor laws.

Based on the recent payout to the terminated Daimler-Benz employee in Portland ( reported in the

Oregonian ) - the settlement was about $1.2M. That case was about 1+ year in court. With 6000 terminated employees - a $100K settlement per employee would be $600M. This may likely take many months ( or a few years ) - if someone decides to go through with this ( or has done so ) . By then , BK and friends will be long gone