Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

There are other Federal investigations underway at Intel. There are at least two other Federal investigations of Intel that are WIP. I'm simply providing facts that I know to be 100% true. My suspicion is that there are many different EEOC complaints along with various types of discrimination complaints in addition to the two that I'm aware of. Intel will try very hard to settle all of these before they get to formal investigation. Good luck.

While it is true that employees over 40 were much more likely to be cut, Intel can just say that higher compensated folks (while correlates well with older folks) were targeted, and that is completely legal. S---s for the over 40.

Here is the data from 2016:

People over 40 were two-and-a-half times more likely to lose their jobs in this spring's layoffs than Intel employees under 40, according to data Intel provided to employees in compliance with the federal Older Workers Benefit Protection Act and obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive.

Yeah, I hear ya, @1aoj. It's been a mystery to me for a long, long time. I tried to understand it and other things in the business world long ago and never could. I think it's because I tried to apply logic to their decisions and couldn't. lol

-nhb

Fail to see how someone with years of experience and perhaps near their natural limit but a still a contributor gets walked just like that, yet URM are hire to make some statistics.

GPTW

Wow. A real 'pink slip'. Are they still doing those? That sounded like a horrible way too. :(

-nhb

Regarding the story about placing boxes on those who were being layed off - a company I previously worked for pulled everyone into the cafeteria to announce the layoff and was told that as we leave the cafeteria, our manager who hand us an envelope and whoever was layed off would take a right otherwise you would take a left and go back to your desk. Quickly we realized that anyone who had a pink sheet of paper in their envelope was being let go. How heartless....a real pink slip, and in front of everyone.

the algorithm that RT selected clearly went after older people. not promoted in x years, no sl4 which tends to affect more terminal grade em-loyees vs recent college graduates. we were hiring while firing. hr sent memos to drop the word 'recent' from recent college graduates job postings, they knew exactly what they were up to.

new skills? yeah they say that but what, exactly? some people parrot without thinking. an RCG that codes Python? so someone who got a CS degree 20 years ago is unable to learn a scripting language? yeah right.

i hope the EEOC nails these guys. fire the old hire the new and reduce cost.

Yeah, that ain't cool, @-nhb. I had forgotten that. I only heard second hand since I wasn't a VSP. That wasn't a great way to handle it either, but really.... is there any good way? No matter how it's done it's going to tick off masses of those hit.

Check out this way from a previous company of mine... some hairbrained HR person (I'm guessing) came up with the idea to put a box on anyone's desk that was laid off, while the entire company was in an Open Forum. When we were told we ALL did the dreaded walk back to our desks to see if we had a box, or not. Then you had people running around trying to see who all had the boxes. It was a very embarrassing and heartless way of handling that IMHO. It was kinda like the Perp Walk for everyone as they neared their offices with a sick feeling in their stomach. :(

-nhb

I forget since I was an ERP and didn't pay a whole lot of attention to what 'rules' landed people on the ISP and VSP lists... did that make you an ISP or a VSP @rlh?

Either way, I'm sorry to hear someone with 4 promos was put on the hit list by that SL4. Honestly? It was the way that whole thing was handled (badly).

(my opinion only) I don't think that has anything to do with age discrimination though. I've heard and read enough stories that management was n't made aware that SL4's were going to get on a hit list. Some mgrs actually thought they were doing the nice thing by giving someone a higher raise and less stock, just to learn what a SL4 would mean down the road. I think it was a sh*tty way to handle that, and worse, a LOT of deadwood didn't get cut, but some very good people did. You sound like one of the latter.

Then there were others that got the dreaded SL4 because they weren't there a full year 'providing value' if they were on an extended medical leave for themselves or a loved one. The higher stock levels were given to those that did more things (had more time to do them). I don't find that fair but then again, the world isn't very fair. I can't tell you the things I find unfair but there's not a d*mn thing I can do about it. When there is I'm all over it! lol :)

Anyway, sorry it worked out that way for you and anyone else that got hit in that manner. it was poorly planned IMHO, and a lot of good people got hurt.

Good luck with your next venture. :)

-nhb

@nhb there were two emails/letters. First a VSP offer then a very much threating letter. Management relayed the message...you have no option but to go. Stay at your own risk. HR ran the numbers to target OWG PERIOD. Got it now?

55 year old with four promotions and one level 4 and shown the door, clear discrimination, sign me up to testify

My guess is you weren't offered JUST ERP @snh if you had no choice but to leave. Guessing you were on the VSP list and they wanted you gone for whatever reason. I was speaking specifically about those solely on the ERP list. They didn't push us to go, they offered a very nice package IN THE HOPES a lot of retiree eligible would leave of their own accord. More leaving on their accord = less that involuntarily need to go to hit target #. I thought it was brilliant and happy to have been offered a very nice package.

Do/did you even work at Intel @syz? What letter are you talking about that went out to OWG? There wasn't one to my knowledge. The "letter" (email, actually) that retiree-eligible people (ERP) were sent didn't 'target' anyone. It was sent to EVERYONE that fell under one of the several retiree eligible rules. I got it and I'm female, Minority (not Indian), and eligible under the Rule of 55. No OWG here. lol In fact, not a single letter in OWG applies to me. More like MMF (middle aged minority female). ;-P

And again, I'm NOT talking about anyone on the VSP or ISP lists. That is a whole different story.

-nhb

Good luck especially if you signed any paperwork that states you cannot sue Intel.

„For some reason the EEOC is not in a hurry to bring the case to court“

Source, please?

ACT was not about headcount reduction. It was about refocussing of Intel‘s business. It‘s not so difficult to figure out why there would be more old white men in Intel‘s old businesses while there are fewer old white men in the businesses that Intel is planning to target now.

That doesn‘t mean that old white men were targeted. Obsoleteness was targeted. That word just happens to apply to many old white men. The lesson for young people to learn from that is to keep your skills updated.

If ACT was targeted towards white men, then why were the people in my team who got ISP and VSP an Indian and a woman?

Please post your sources that prove your claims. I am sure you are not making that kind of statements without any proof to back them up?

@imf - that is really where the rubber meets the road. ACT was specifically targeted to remove and replace white men. Net headcount reduction = 0. If the government does not act to this blatant illegal activity then people will.

NHM, why shouldn't private companies be held to the same standard as government employees?

If that letter was sent to any government agency asking OWG to leave, not only would there be a class action suit the next day, but there would be endless congress inquiries. Why shouldn't I have the same protection as government employees? Sickening how Intel is and has treated its employees - your only as good as your employees being treated does not apply at Intel.

Wrong NHB, I was told specifically I have NO choice but to leave. I have NEVER received anything less than a success (EE in last 4 yrs) - stock level 3 (typically 2 and above). The fact that I was white, over 45 made me mandatory removal. I hope Intel has to pay billions.

It is definitely age discrimination if it has a disparate impact on older workers. Even the ERP is because people were heavily pressured to take it and many of the people offered that were also offered VSP. The company needs to be held accountable for discriminating based on age. A group won a class action suit against them for 2009 layoffs, so it could happen again.

When you say it was "clearly targeted at older worker" I think people are including the ERP #'s in that. I hope the EEOC understands what the ERP was about and kick out any of that data. Here's why.. The ERP HAD TO be given to older people because it was ALL ABOUT being nice and offering anyone eligible to retire the chance to do so with an EXTREMELY nice package.

The more people to opt out (that were either dragging their feet, or were patiently or impatiently waiting for a package (me), or didn't realize they hit a rule other than the Rule of 75 (not everyone realized they were eligible to retire as they were unaware there were more rules that the Rule of 75), meant LESS EMPLOYEES that would have to be targeted INVOLUNTARILY to hit their reduction number.

IOW.... The more that happily took a package meant less that unhappily were ousted. I look at it as a nice gesture on Intel's part. In fact, I used to tell people I was taking the ERP package so someone else could keep their job. Well, it wasn't JUST for that. LOL I was one that impatiently was waiting around for a package (Rule of 55 and I wanted OUT).

I do understand that the OWG feel discriminated against but really, EVERYONE needs a Plan B in life (and a Plan C is good to have too). People are not entitled to keep their jobs as long as they feel like it. It's not the way things work.

Take away? Always have a Plan B as sometimes things don't work out as you want them to.

If there really is an investigation, that’s very bad news for intel. People have put together the data from ACT and it was clearly targetted at older workers. Combine that with the fact that we’re nearly back at pre-ACT employment levels and the picture is clear.