#reorg

Curious where folks are seeing cuts. HSE here, and honestly I can’t tell how deep this is. I am seeing a lot of down grading of roles tho…

When a company states that it will expand its footprint in an area with a new facility and consolidate 2 sites (Emeryville and San Diego) into one single research site, then something has to give. It won't be the leadership, but everybody else will be on the chopping block in 18-24 months. It is going to be painful for Novartis folks in California!

How do the jobs posted in rd 2 look in the subsurface space? Big cuts?

I am really worried about what joining Cenovus means for our jobs. Will there be layoffs or restructuring? The uncertainty is stressful.

The job cuts included the elimination of the merchandising coordinator position, as Saks Global continues to blend the merchandising systems of Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus into an integrated system, WWD reports.

https://news.centurionjewelry.com/articles/detail/saks-cuts-90-jobs-in-another-round-of-layoffs

In the old days, companies used to call layoffs “downsizing” or “right-sizing,” like it was some kind of corporate yoga pose. Now it’s just “restructuring” “ Early Retirement Program “—a polite way of saying we spun the wheel and your name came up.

Make no mistake: layoffs in corporate America aren’t always about performance. They’re about PowerPoint presentations, stock price sugar highs, and executives proving to shareholders that they’re “decisive” by cutting the very people who actually do the work.

You can almost picture the C-suite playing a board game:
• Roll the dice — Land on “Cut 500 jobs” and collect a bonus.
• Draw a card — “Move production offshore, skip ahead to your stock grant vesting date.”
• Spin the wheel — “Congratulations! You’ve eliminated your entire customer support team. Hope the chatbot works!”

Meanwhile, employees are left watching their email like contestants on a reality TV show, waiting to see if they’re voted off the island or if they get to keep their seat in the open office zoo.

And the best part? The company will send you a warm, heartfelt email thanking you for your “dedicated service,” signed by an executive who couldn’t pick you out of a lineup. But don’t worry—your sacrifice will be remembered… until the next quarterly earnings call.

The pink slip game isn’t about survival of the fittest. It’s survival of whoever’s on the “critical projects” spreadsheet that quarter. And even that’s temporary. Because sooner or later, they spin the wheel again.

This post needed its own thread. The OP is @a9+1k36wh77z, all credit goes to them.

Arena BioWorks has laid off 30% of its workers 19 months after launching with $500 million and visions of bringing the Bell Labs model to biotech.

Changes at Arena BioWorks follow events that have shaken confidence in gene therapies.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/arena-bioworks-19-months-after-splashy-launch-lays-30-its-staff

The board has been working with a financial company for a year behind the scenes to prepare any and all parts or the whole for sale. Mark had FY25 to stop the bleed but also, simultaneously, start positioning business units to be lean and attractive to buyers .

Today's call was clear as stated by the board member that they have been working with FIN analysts and will continue to do so.

The fact is that a significant amount of preparation for sale has been in play for many months and we can expect and should be ready for a series if announcements when the new CEO comes on board before the start of Q2 in 6 weeks.

@be+1k2f42xsy makes an excellent point.

From what I am hearing, most of folks on ISP list will be DLs.

Given the objective of cascade 2 is to reduce leadership layers, it makes sense. GPs/Directors will save their skin and throw DLs under the bus.

Skills, capabilities and performance will not matter. If you are a DL and don’t have a GP/Director protecting you, your name will end up on the ISP list.

After closing hundreds of branches through merger and project star, the latest bright idea to save the bank is to build hundreds of new branches lol. Analysts (particularly Mike Mayo) promptly p-o-p-o these plans as too little too late, pointing out the plan doesn’t actually solve for the banks primary issues.

Looking in my crystal ball, I can see in ~ 2 years time we will have new leaders whose “bold” idea to save the bank will be to consolidate/close branches.

So that means we’re still a long way from being done? Mid-September is the earliest we can hope for this to finally be over?

We have serious organizational and leadership challenges that a headcount reduction alone can’t solve. Yes, there may be redundancies in some areas, but at the same time, we’re missing key roles that are critical to moving forward. What we need is competent leadership with a clear, thoughtful vision for where we’re headed and how we’re going to get there. Letting go of 30 people, seemingly at random, without a strategic plan to address the root problems won’t take us anywhere.

The Economist, Aug 21st 2025 | 6 min read

To survive, Intel must break itself apart

• And it should do so before it is too late

Intel once set the pace of technological progress. Gordon Moore, one of its founders, predicted in 1965 that chips would get faster and cheaper with metronomic consistency. Over the decades Intel brought Moore’s Law to life, designing and building the processors that powered servers and, later, personal computers. Today it makes headlines for its turmoil more than its technology. On August 7th President Donald Trump demanded the resignation of Lip-Bu Tan, Intel’s boss, citing his links to China, only to praise Mr Tan four days later after meeting him. Reports soon surfaced that the government was pursuing a 10% stake in the company, which would make it Intel’s largest shareholder. On August 18th SoftBank, a Japanese tech conglomerate, announced that it would invest $2bn in the company.

The drama has refocused attention on Intel’s plight. The company has missed nearly every big shift in its industry over the past two decades. It failed to profit from the rise of smartphones, was slow to adopt advanced lithography tools and has largely sat out the bo-m in artificial intelligence (AI). Between 2021 and 2024 revenue dropped by a third, from nearly $80bn to just over $50bn; last year it made a net loss of almost $20bn (see chart 1). Over the past five years its market value has fallen by roughly half, to around $100bn. TSMC, which has stolen Intel’s crown as the world’s leading chip manufacturer, is worth ten times as much.

Yet Intel still matters, as Mr Trump’s interest shows. The most advanced chips, vital for smartphones and AI, are now made almost entirely by TSMC. America’s tech giants depend on it. Such reliance on a single supplier—particularly one based in Taiwan—is risky. Intel is one of the few firms that could rival TSMC. But it will need more than government subsidies to do so. If it is to recover its chipmaking prowess, Intel will need to break itself apart.

Throughout its history Intel has designed and built its own chips. That integration let it use its manufacturing prowess to deliver better products even when its designs lagged behind. From the mid-2010s, however, repeated missteps in its manufacturing saw it fall behind TSMC. Deprived of that advantage, Intel’s processors became uncompetitive with those from AMD, a long-term rival which gave up on manufacturing long ago. In 2021 Intel, too, began outsourcing production of its most advanced chips to TSMC.

The erosion of Intel’s manufacturing leadership has coincided with fiercer competition in the market for designing processors. As recently as 2019 Intel controlled 84% of the global market for PC chips and 94% for servers. By 2024 those figures had fallen to 69% and 62%, respectively (see chart 2). AMD, using the x86 architecture pioneered by Intel, has developed better chips. Cloud giants such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft, which were once reliant on Intel, now design their own processors using outlines from Arm, a British company owned by SoftBank. In December Amazon said that half the server capacity it added in the preceding two years used its own silicon.

Pat Gelsinger, Intel’s boss from 2021 to 2024, tried to reverse the slide. He split design and manufacturing into two units, allowing the product arm to shop around for the best manufacturer while opening Intel’s chip factories, called “fabs”, to outsiders. To build a contract-chipmaking business, known as a “foundry”, Mr Gelsinger then set about splurging $90bn on new fabs in four American states. He tapped private equity and bagged nearly $8bn in subsidies under America’s CHIPS Act to fund his vision. But the plan was thrown into disarray by a combination of technical problems at the foundry, which deterred external customers, and falling sales at the design arm.

Pat on his back

Mr Tan, who took over in March after Mr Gelsinger was sacked, seems to have different priorities. He has rightly identified that the company is bloated; at the end of 2024 it employed 109,000 people, nearly as many as Nvidia, the leading designer of AI chips, and TSMC combined. Mr Tan plans to cut Intel’s workforce by a quarter by the end of this year. When it comes to AI, he believes that the firm should focus not on designing chips for training models, an area that Nvidia dominates, but on inference, the task of running them. As for the foundry, last month Mr Tan scrapped projects in Germany and Poland, and pushed construction of Intel’s advanced fabs in Ohio back to the early 2030s. He also hinted that the company might retreat from leading-edge manufacturing if it cannot secure external customers.

All that may help buy Intel time. Yet it lacks the boldness needed to save the company from fading into irrelevance. Evercore, an investment bank, reckons Intel’s design arm might be worth more than $100bn on its own. But it faces a crowded field and its products are no longer distinctive.

Mr Tan could sell the division to another fabless chipmaker such as Broadcom while it still holds value and focus solely on the foundry, which is troubled but holds more long-term promise. Its newest “18A” process incorporates transistors that are ahead of TSMC’s, as well as a novel way of feeding power through the back of the chip to save space and energy. SemiAnalysis, a consultancy, reckons Intel will need to invest a bit over $50bn between 2025 and 2027 to make it competitive in leading-edge manufacturing. A sale of the design division would more than cover that.

Parting with the design business would help in other ways, too. Foundries must serve many customers using the same process. To do so they provide “process design kits”—the blueprints chipmakers use to design their products. TSMC’s kits are broad and easy to use. Intel still tunes its kits for its own products first. One veteran designer who has used both says Intel “lacks the experience” of working with outsiders. Ian Cutress, a semiconductor analyst, notes that Intel sought to buy that expertise with its attempted acquisition of Tower Semiconductor, an Israeli foundry, but the deal collapsed after Chinese regulators withheld approval.

By making its foundry truly independent, Intel may be better able to persuade other chip designers to work with it. More customers would, in turn, make Intel a more compelling choice. Foundries live or die by yield—the share of chips that function as intended. New processes start buggy and improve only with volume. Foundries typically need yields above 70% to break even; the current rate for Intel’s 18A process is reportedly closer to 10%.

America’s tech giants would certainly welcome another alternative to TSMC. Samsung, the only other contender in leading-edge chipmaking, recently secured a $16.5bn contract from Tesla, a car company, to make AI chips at a new fab in Texas. But the South Korean company has a reputation for being difficult with customers and has faced technical challenges of its own. Indeed, if Intel’s shareholders would rather pocket the proceeds of a sale of the design arm, it is possible that a consortium of would-be foundry customers could be persuaded to invest instead. SoftBank has also reportedly expressed interest in acquiring Intel’s manufacturing business.

Intel faces a difficult choice. A foundry-only business would certainly be a gamble. But the longer it dithers, the lower the chance of success. Intel’s greatness once lay in doing everything. Its contribution in future may come from doing one thing well: making chips.

The company is tightening up its workforce across multiple divisions and restructured several parts of its business, resulting in the loss of 30 jobs. The cuts have been made with “the goal of investing in capabilities that will propel our business into the future,” according to a Hallmark spokesperson.

https://www.thewrap.com/hallmark-layoffs-company-restructuring/

Has anyone visiting this page been impacted by the pooling process discussed a few weeks ago?

Cosmetics company has approved layoffs of 3,200 staff based on a previously disclosed restructuring plan and may reduce head count by another 3,800, with expected restructuring charges of up to $1.6 billion.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/estee-lauder-to-cut-up-to-7-000-jobs-as-china-and-duty-free-sales-stay-weak-82092ee3

A SI and Ops Spec. roles had a last-minute meeting this week stating that we're looking at reduction of roles due to NK's lifecycle.

Anyone else catch any more details on this?

When will EMEA reorg start? Aren't they supposed to still go through the Tech reorg?

It’s increasingly unclear what’s happening within Moulis’ former organization in OT. There’s been little to no communication about the long-term plan, while people keep leaving or being let go. Rumors of another reorg continue but with no transparency on timing or impact. Leadership — including the new VP — has not provided clarity or support. Does anyone have additional insight on this?

Obviously they’re using their ridiculous corporate buzzwords to soften the blow. The way they’ve said everything made it seem like this is going to be the last round of layoffs by saying there is no Cascade 3.

But… it says “There is no Cascade 3 as part of Capacity Realignment.”

Those sneaky ba----ds. Capacity Realignment is just phase one. “Cascade 2 will conclude Capacity Realignment.” There’s still Sourcing & Shoring and AI & Automation phases to come.

Maybe this was obvious to a lot of people, but I definitely had a false sense of security thinking this would potentially be it. I knew there would always be the POTENTIAL for additional layoffs down the road, but this sneaky bullsh-t just really jumped out at me today.

I wish they’d stop the bullsh-t buzzwords, grow up, and just say things as they are. Instead, they’re being a bunch of cowards hiding behind pretty words.

1. America first - Shipment of jobs to the CEO's and CFO's is a conflict of interest.
2. Eliminate the prior regime's dross - The use of consultants at Waters has wreaked havoc.
3. Use qualified ppl. for leader roles - Rewarding the LT's cronies has NOT worked out well.

I'm watching the dumpster fire with me popcorn.

So from Cameron Bready's exhausting epilogue, the word counter on "change" was absurd. "Change" aka in HR word speak is re-orgs and layoffs.

Has anyone received their in-scope notification for wave 2 selection event yet? Houston-based, CTC employee here, and haven’t heard anything yet…

Has anybody heard if health and medical in San Ramon and Houston are going to be part of wave two?

Sitting by the phone the get my wave 2 call…and it occurs to me how little I’m going to get done the next…week? month?…as I negotiate this theatre. Do they even realize what they’ve done here?

Think there should a pause before another CPM wave right?

Sr. Manager here. I read this board every so often but, please don't get complacent and feel like you are safe right now. Unfortunately, it's not quite done. Last week was the majority but there is another round this coming Monday. I have 5 meetings with HR and my directs that I don't want to be in next week. Good luck .

One after another, all members of Pershing’s technology leadership team were either let go or resigned. Leadership positions have since been taken over by individuals from BNY Wealth and Albridge, many of whom lack a solid understanding of the business. Their actions are causing significant issues, and I hope they recognize the problems before the situation becomes too big to recover from.

I don't understand how it's possible to lay people off when myself and my coworkers are so swamped with work that we are working 12 hour days plus weekends on salary?? So stupid! Reorg! We've lost so many longer timers with so much knowledge..we literally had to hire 3 people to fill one of their positions! Just one! But instead they are hiring more upper management!

This reorg under COO organization will be huge - will redefine the way any contract is executed/delivered to clients within Gainwell.

It is a major shift that will lead to many losing out (in fact, several positions will be terminated and WFR’d) but for a few, it will be a win for short term.

Look out for the email/discussions from your manager/dept head over next week or so. Good luck to everyone involved.

Shocker. No big change. Just same people new titles. Good job, again.

I worked for a reputable temp staffing agency and they contracted my role with FISGlobal saying it was at least 6 month opportunity. On the start date, I join and they onboard me and let me meet my team of 3 onshore persons. Less than a week later, 1 person is let go; without any announcement. I meet my broader project team of 4 persons, 3 of which are offshore in india. 2 weeks later, my small team is absorbed in a larger existing team of 10+ persons; where sprints are managed by an offshore person asking me for an project update on a sh-t project that has 0% of success. 1 month later, I get a call from my staffing agency that the contract was cut and all their existing staffing resources were let go including my own position. This is no way to work and is a terrible company and client.

Rumor has it, it will take place after the summer, somewhere in september. Anyone else heard otherwise? I wonder as now it seems the reorg will also happen in business so not sure if works council will review it as one big reorg or tech will go first.