Do we have an inkling on what criteria was used to determine who gets laid off?
Prior experience included some of our best people with most experience while a few completely useless (and I am being generous by only using that term) individuals are still here wasting both our time and company's money.
Are we really going to be getting rid of dead weight or will those earning more than average due to their time with Qualcomm again pay the price?
Director here who had to make the decisions. It was actually pretty easy, it was based on business need and last TRR rating. I cut one smart guy with a 6, but don't need his skill set, yet kept a borderline 3/4 with good skills.
Always be on top of your game, don't rely on your title, ranking, or friends.
My feeling is
First they are squeezing indirect costs, IT, HR, office management, something Q excels at. Maybe lawyers will be less affected.
Then those units, products they are not betting for the future will come next.
Finally those guys that have stayed too much in the company and earn too much for what they do and/or those low performers or problematic individuals.
Probably they had a target wages cost savings and have applied it with a criteria similar to that.
Kind of makes sense
Following the money. The directive is to save as much $'s as possible and still get the work done. The highest earners tend to bear the weight of the layoff.
My team (in QCES) is dismantled, half going to one new boss, half going to another. This is the worst case scenario. Doesn't matter how well I've performed in the past. New boss will get rid of unknown people first, no brainer.
Previous layoffs were merit based. Of course merit is to some degree subjective, but I was a top performer so I never worried.
This time, it seems more team- and project-based. If you're in the wrong team like me, merit may not matter.