Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Congress may finally stop Intel's H-1B visa abuse.

Good to hear that congress is finally tackling H-1B visa abuse by US companies including Intel. I have been an H-1B employee at Intel for many years, so I know what I am talking about. Last year, Intel laid off thousands of US workers. Most of them were older such as 40+, so they can't have been on an H1-B visa even if they were foreigners but must have been primarily either citizens or green card holders. (H-1B holders are almost always young since someone cannot be on an H1-B for more than about 6 years.) Within months of the devastating layoff, Intel rehired thousands of people and is almost back at its pre-layoff headcount. Now let's look at what type of people tech companies including Intel typically hire: young people. Almost always young people out of college. Especially Intel doesn't hire experienced people. At PTD in Hillsboro (a huge organization), I have in fact never seen an external experienced hire. Anyone who has worked at a tech company including Intel knows: Most new hires are foreigners. Therefore, they are hired either on H-1B or OPT followed by H-1B. So in summary, Intel's action last year laid off primarily citizens/permanent residents and replaced them by young H-1Bs. What an abuse.

Intel: please make a good faith effort to hire (or keep) citizens/green card holders.

Young H-1B holders currently at Intel: You will probably not like what I wrote, but in a few years when you are in your 40s, you will understand. Keep my fingers crossed you can keep your job then.

by
| 1704 views | | 12 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+M8idFmO

12 replies (most recent on top)

I agree with you OP. Most people don't understand that all those given ISP and those forced into VSP were rated Successful. There is a category for under-performers - its called BE (which they deliberately removed),and IR. Why call someone Successful and then lay them off based on ISP? You know BK actually admitted to issues in the layoff process in 2016. They call it performance based, but really its not. In 2016, managers gave some people levels4/5 to distribute the compensation among all their employees. So some of those who got high raises actually got lower stock levels. Its a known fact. Many people got level4/5 because they changed orgs!

What Intel does is force senior people to leave, then distribute that persons work among the remaining senior people in the org. If you continue this through the organization, openings are created at the lower levels - and then they hire the H1B's for those openings. Ultimately, if the H1B's were not available, people would not have been laid off. The fact that they re-hired exactly the same number of people as those they laid off is a clear indication of how (and why) they laid off people.

In 2016 most of the people laid off were older people who had put in 15+ years in the company.

by
|
Post ID: @3uea+M8idFmO

Sorry, start of 2nd paragraph should have been

BTW there are no questions why (non-white) foreigners were hired,

by
|
Post ID: @1aqx+M8idFmO

@zlc There might have been several reasons for the mass layoffs, but actual performance isn't high on that list. At least in '15 there was public disclosures from which age discrimination was blatantly obvious. Only payoffs of 1Y or more salary + healthcare has kept a major lawsuit at bay (so far, age discrimination is illegal). The immediate replacement by cheap H1Bs and RCGs, and the resulting failures last couple of years further underscore it was a discriminatory cost cutting measure, masked with feel-good pretenses, that replaced experience and knowhow with cluelessness and incompetence. It's very likely that AMD is going to wipe the floor with Intel this time around. There are no aces hidden to pull this time, current price cuts won't do, and continued failures across the board will prevent you from getting ahead for a long time. But hey, take comfort in going down politically correct with affirmative actions on URMs.

BTW there are no questions why (non-white) foreigners weren't hired, hiring managers had standing orders only to fill positions with URMs. It was either hire a URM or don't hire at all. If that's not abuse then I'd like to know what is. This also washes all the propaganda from BK & HR about hiring the best and the brightest down the drain. Qualifications were not part of the hiring decisions, URM status was.

by
|
Post ID: @1xso+M8idFmO

Funny how everyone here who knows a little bit about how Intel works and who is capable of logical thought is automatically called "HR".

When you believe that someone can only have an opinion that differs from yours when they were paid for it, then you have a serious mental problem.

by
|
Post ID: @1smc+M8idFmO

@ Post ID: @M8idFmO-zlc: It is not easier to get laid off in higher grades than in lower grades: The percentage of stock level 4/5 is the same in all grade levels. So the layoff chance is exactly the same relative to the grade level you are in. If you are an H-1B in your 40s, then you are an exception. Let's not debate about facts that almost all H-1Bs are young and that Intel (primarily PTD in Oregon) almost never hires experienced people from outside.

by
|
Post ID: @1yyy+M8idFmO

The BS is strong in this one. First of all, there is really no reason why H1-B holders would be young. I am 43 and was offered a job on H1-B in the US last year. Your reasoning makes me doubt your intelligence. The rest of your nonsense doesn't help.

The criterion for the layoffs was performance. Not race, not salary, not national origin. Performance. Yes, it is easier to underperform in higher grades, so older people are more likely to be a target of this kind of layoff. Fair? No. But does it have ANYTHING to do with "H1-B abuse"? No. Complete bullcrp. I know of a lot of H1-B holders who got fired. That doesn't fit into your argument though. And you say yourself that H1-B holders who reach 40 (after arguing that they should hardly exist) need to worry. What a way to crp right onto your own silly argument.

Yes, when people get hired, they are very often foreigners. Why is that abuse? If a manager in the US opens up a position and not a single American applies, or all Americans who apply are ridiculously underqualified, then what choice do they have? That's how I got my offer in the US. In total, five people applied. The other four besides me were from India. It would have been a total compensation of 150k plus relocation expenses. How the fock would that count as "H1-B abuse"?

I do understand though that someone with a low ability for basic logical reasoning like you would consider the fact that they managed to get an H1-B "abuse". Certainly shows that the system is not perfect. But that doesn't imply that every H1-B holder is an idiot who only got the job because Intel has some irrational hate towards Americans.

by
|
Post ID: @zlc+M8idFmO

The same things across other US companies. Capitals never recognize motherland but only share holders (share holders mean big guys not small fishes. Employees are only labors). To fix such system flaw, not easy but necessary. Simple, these bug guys != USA (majority vs minority).

by
|
Post ID: @wms+M8idFmO

While BK & friends are touting gossip like "only the best and brightest" or "meritocracy" blablabla, foreign teenagers are eagerly waiting to attend college and graduate, get an H-1B and push current Intel employees out of the job in about 10 years. It's everyone's turn at some point.

by
|
Post ID: @rri+M8idFmO

Post a reply

: