Check it out
https://ccwd.hecc.oregon.gov/Layoff/WARN
11 replies (most recent on top)
@ag your statements are not completely correct. Paying severance in excess of 60 days doesn't excuse an employer from WARN requirements. Read the employer pdf link below.
This is from the department of labor web site. It is the WARN Act handbooks for employers and workers. It isn't the actual WARN act text but it is the high level information the DOL provides to employers. I am sure Intel lawyers have read this and the actual WARN Act. Noncompliance with the actual details of the law would surprise me.
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/_EmployerWARN2003.pdf
There is also an workers handbook on the DOL site.
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/WorkerWARN2003.pdf
This is why the company refuted the media claim that there would be a 20%.
Even after all the delay, they still couldn't find more than a few thousand jobs to be cut, out of 95k headcount.
Face it, they are going to have to sell off some fabs and product groups to really put a dent in the headcount. The company is still to this day spread too thin, trying to do too many things.
Not nearly enough Ronler heads, should’ve been 50x that amount
Idk what’s so confusing. In theory, we’d be seeing the following buckets for these overall cuts:
- Fired for cause (not in WARN counts)
- Laid off without package (WARN)
- Laid off with a package (no WARN needed)
- Handful leave on their own due to RTO toward August deadline if rumors here about remote workers is true or others jump for new opportunity
So yeah, of course the WARN would seem ‘small’
@OP https://katu.com/news/local/more-than-500-intel-corporation-employees-laid-off-in-oregon-hillsboro-aloha-jobs-money-economy-business-local-portland
PDF breakdown of job roles included
My understanding is that WARN reporting can be bypassed if the severance package covers the 60 day WARN requirement. Meaning, any large number of people can be fired with no WARN notice if their severance covers at least 60 days.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that Intel packages exceed the penalty for WARN violations anyway. There doesn't seem to be any real reason to be accurate about it, except to hide the actual numbers, therefore looking good to the politicians that gave the tax breaks.
"An employer that violates the WARN Act notice requirement is liable to each affected employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of violation up to 60 days."
The gov't paperwork lags reality by quite a bit. Nothing new. Think of TPS reports delayed by 24 months.
These do seem very low, especially from what heard from folks elsewhere.
List doesn’t seem correct. Maybe more will be added. I know an area that lost 6 MTs. The list doesn’t reflect that.
There’s no way this is all of it.. one technician at Ronler?