Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Layoffs are rarely objective

Our team got decimated (~40% HC reduction). When I asked my manager how he made the decisions, he admitted that he kept people with kids/family because he didn't have the heart to cut them. A lot of the younger guys, who were absolute rockstars at their job, were let go because, and I quote, "They have a better chance in the job market".

by
| 5270 views | | 29 replies (last July 14) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1k02qwz3h

29 replies (most recent on top)

You can't do that - it has to be performance or role based. Everyone has a story, a reason to need or want their job. Everyone. It is hard, but if mgmt forces you to cut you must be as objective as possible rather than weighing stories.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @eg+1k02qwz3h

@OP You got everyone arguing over something that didn't even happen. 😂

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @e0+1k02qwz3h

@aw 😂😂😂👌

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dz+1k02qwz3h

Well that’s a load of horse cr@p

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d8+1k02qwz3h

@be HR does the paperwork, not the decision of whom gets let go.

https://www.thelayoff.com/post/@OP+1k03jmbkq

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bx+1k02qwz3h

@be HR does not choose who to lay off, Intel learned their lesson from ACT2016.

Nowadays it’s up to the individual orgs and BUs (many do a skills matrix or business need evaluation) but in practice FLMs and SLMs have the most say.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bn+1k02qwz3h

As far as I know HR made the decision so not sure where you’re getting this. If your manager rated others unfairly he should lose his managerial role.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @be+1k02qwz3h

Targeted low performers in my area, with a few exceptions where roles were eliminated. This may not reflect the situation across all of Intel

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b5+1k02qwz3h

South Indian managers always protect their South Indian reports. Period!! Fu--ing racists!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b3+1k02qwz3h

Low performers were targeted. PERIOD!!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aw+1k02qwz3h

@OP It looks like you are in a product testing group, experience and skill are not important.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @av+1k02qwz3h

@ac Nah, this is perfectly in line with Intel. Managers always have favorites and will protect their inner circle. In fact, you are more likely to be laid off if you are the top performance as some managers are afraid of you replacing them.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @at+1k02qwz3h

@ah Really? The manager hastened Intel's demise by firing the rockstars. When Intel shutdown, those guys with families and rest of the people left in Intel will also lose their jobs.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @as+1k02qwz3h

Layoff is not not the objective. But this is the way to achieve the objective. Make the company ready to sell piece by piece.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @an+1k02qwz3h

No. Given the lack of transparency/guidance, just headcount reduction targets, this particular manager made a commend decision in a company that lacks leadership. I said he demonstrated leadership, whether or not you agree

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ak+1k02qwz3h

@ah

The managers are the true heroes! Their sacrifices and always looking out for own best interest over their own!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aj+1k02qwz3h

Again. I commend this manager for protecting families and for understanding young talent needs to get the he-l out of this environment. He's about saving people. You're about ride and die with a sinking ship

"If true (which I doubt), he is not acting as a proper steward of corporate, shareholder, etc. resources.

I will commend his sympathy and empathy top those who have families and are potentially less employable. That is not his responsibility or concern.

What he also told you is that he retained you for similar reasons."

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ah+1k02qwz3h

Call BS op.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ac+1k02qwz3h

Except def met the handling there is 100% logical and above board

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ab+1k02qwz3h

If true (which I doubt), he is not acting as a proper steward of corporate, shareholder, etc. resources.

I will commend his sympathy and empathy top those who have families and are potentially less employable. That is not his responsibility or concern.

What he also told you is that he retained you for similar reasons.

Good luck

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aa+1k02qwz3h

Intel liars again. They like to ki-l their own family members for profits.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a9+1k02qwz3h

"Sounds like a good guy"???
Maybe, but he clearly lacks judgement.... by letting go people who were rockstars he just enabled some other company, that will hire them, to move ahead in the game while intel is still stuck with subpar people who were busy making kids.

How do you think intel got to this position?? Wrong decisions throughout the hierarchy.... and oh btw, the so called rockstars are also human, their confidence and career can be crushed due to decisions like these and more importantly they will start losing faith in fairness!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a8+1k02qwz3h

Manager made the decision based on HIS criteria, and in the process demonstrated leadership, The young g-ns should be fine, even in this market

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a7+1k02qwz3h

That same manager is now responsible for that same guy moving some place else because this many folk out of work along with Nike and others has made jobs impossible to find unless you don't mind blue collar labor

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a6+1k02qwz3h

@OP "Decimate" does not mean 40% reduction, it means 10% reduction. See the origin of the word, you ignoramus, e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment)

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a5+1k02qwz3h

Unfortunately, hiring and retaining people based on aspects other than performance is partly how Intel arrived in its current situation. Layoff due to (lack of) family status might even be illegal.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a4+1k02qwz3h

Manager great guys sort of. Nepotism and favorites at its best. Intel way. This is the way.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a3+1k02qwz3h

@OP your manager sounds like a good guy actually

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1k02qwz3h

Post a reply

: