Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Intel does this does that. Who are intel? Whom do you blame? Intel is not an empty entity.

I guess you probably mean leadership, and must know CEO is number 1 position. Now do you think BK should have been more human when he laid off people based on ssl, or he should have received a better treatment when he himself got fired?

So what was the BOD doing while getting him for the CEO position. Given the impact of this job, why would they not run a thorough background check on him?

This whole story about non fraternization is false bait for the public to chew. BK should have been fired for some 10 other large scale failures.

I'd have no sympathy for the family, unless they refuse to share his I'll gotten wealth. I wonder how they slept at night when their dear daddy hurt some 20000 children like themselves.

BS all but said in the open forum that it was announced the way it was to protect the stock price. BK leaving for any reason too vague, like personal reasons, would make investors think something is wrong with business, strategy, 10nm, etc. this was the only way to protect shareholders.

The post did not suggest they lie about the circumstances. It simple suggested that they say he resigned for personal reasons. That’s true as a consensual affair is personal.

@ frn: I understand and empathize with you - After more than 20 years at Intel, I too was impacted in 2016 and also almost exactly 12 months before I was eligible to hit the rule of 75. Still I think what Intel did was right to fire this guy and truthfully state the circumstances.

To your point about an eye for an eye, its not that. In fact, I think if Intel had hidden the circumstances by stating a retirement or some such personal reason, I think it would be a disservice to a lot of people - both women and men - who would be at risk either at Intel or some other company because it does not change the culture. This sends a clear message to all managers at Intel to not do things like this. My suspicion is that perhaps there are other cases like this already happening or reported (which have not come out yet), and they want to give a clear message to everyone. This is probably why they came out with the statement truthfully. In general, Intel managers are not very truthful or even courageous - but they had to this time.

Why assume it was the BoD's choice to put BK throw the bus? Perhaps an upset person in the know forced the BoD's hand by asserting that they would leak the news if the BoD didn't do so first.

I was one personally impacted at Intel and just 12 months shy of being eligible the rule of 75. I also was one who’s husband had a work affair with a coworker after 9 years of marriage and on the brink of starting our family. I despise BK and Swan for that matter for their leadership style, the way they treat people and what they’ve done to the once upstanding culture. All that said I don’t agree with what BK did BUT I don’t believe two “wrongs” make a right nor do I believe we should treat evil with evil.

Agree that if they simply said BK left for “personal” reasons it wouldn’t sit as the rumors and press and informal channels would figure it all out. But at least it would be a way for the company to take the high road, to attempt to be humane.

Do I feel sorry for BK? No. Do I feel he did this to his family? Yes. But do I fell Intel should and could have handled the communication differently and without appearing to treat evil with evil? Yes.

@wia - Exactly! BK gets what he deserves. Too bad for the wife and kids, but this gives her leverage on the divorce settlement.

" No reason to drag BK’s children and wife through the mud"

• BK did that to them himself, not Intel.

@TOUjCVa-clr. 100% agree.

If someone with such a high profile has to leave so abruptly, “personal reasons” would not be convincing. Maybe some people think less vague reason could reduce the speculation?

Karma s---s, worked like a beast of burden for 28 years to get to the top office and get kicked to the curb on a covenient zero tolerance policy.

Feels just like the ACT of 2016 and silent ACT of 2015.

GPTW isn’t intel

-kfo i respect that you would “never feel sorry for BK because of all of his evil deeds.” Let me clarify my original post. I was not saying that we should feel sorry for BK. What I was saying is that we should treat people as we would want to be treated, treating evil with evil is not the answer. It would have been very easy for the BOD/Bryant to simply say her left for “personal reasons” and left it at that. No reason to drag BK’s children and wife through the mud. All I was saying is the company should learn to be humane and professional & take the high road regardless of who they are pushing out. It’s the humane way and right thing to do. Do the right things right.

@TOUjCVa-mbs: your timeline seems right with an article on WSJ. It is strange that the employee involved in the affair told a coworker about the already on June 14, and the coworker reported it on the same day.

I hope all the bad Intel managers get this same treatment. Karma doesn't come and bite back the way you think. I am glad he's gone the same way he treated so many loyal and good employees during his ACTs. So many people's lives have been destroyed by the 2016 layoff labeling them with no-rehire policy after never ever getting a single bad rating.

Intel is filled with these examples of selectively applying rules. In fact, I understand that BK admitted in an open-forum that the 2016 ACT was not done fairly, and that he was no aware that there were so many problems in the Intel focal process. Then why keep the 2016 no rehire policy? In fact, I heard that they over-turned this no-rehire policy on a selective basis - mostly for URM's and women (and still continue to do that). I know so many Intel engineers that in the past received stock levels 4/5 and still are working at Intel.

I'm not buying the 'decade ago' story - even Intel wouldn't apply a 2011 rule to a 2008 incident. I do agree it was a cover for booting him, however.

OP,

I respect your opinion about this event and the possible "scapegoating"; however, I could never feel sorry for BK because of all of his evil deeds. Of course, if BK suddenly came out on a talk show, apologized for all those thousands of people's lives he personally ruined, and came clean with everything he did, perhaps there will be some respect for this bravery. That's just a wish though, as he'll retire with his millions that he milked from Intel and remain a coward.

https://venturebeat.com/2018/06/22/the-strange-case-of-intel-ceos-departure-for-fraternization/

Please read in full

@naf - I do believe you may be on the right track with your comment there. Another post stated that BK's delusions of grandeur didn't end with the CEO spot. He wanted to control the board and was already plotting how to backstab AB, taking the chairmanship and installing Fatso as CEO. Somehow, AB caught wind of it and crucified the traitor on the spot. Or maybe it was some of the newer board members as AB had always been a protector of BK (at least until last year). Definitely, the 'consensual relationship' story was just an excuse to blame him without tainting the external perception of the company's peformance. Talk about Game of Thrones $hit right there!

@TOUJCVA-naf-> I do not think you understood the post at all. It did not sympathesize with BK. The issue at question is irrespective of whether anybody of whatever stature, abilities or performance deserves this or not. Saw hundred of posts claiming that since ACT was initiated by BK, he deserved this from bad KARMA. This is a soap opera logic!!!. Sound’s like a good vs evil cliche. The pertinent point is that being CEO, definitely BK was the critical face for ACT, but it was a BOD, executive committee and MCM decision. Beyond doubt it was insanely inhumane. To make the story short, ACT and yesterday’s episode, shows the business model and culture of Intel (or maybe corporations at large). Whoever works/have worked at Intel in recent years knows, neither the company appreciates innovation, nor does it want one, or else it would have been selective/specific in hiring engineers for developing one of the most challenging and intricate technological marvels. You get hired into a position( which you yourself do not know why you were hired for or for which skill/experience). in most cases your spouse if RCG gets hired too ( does not matter what major, as long it is science/eng, that’s enough). Never heard ever that a tech company is hiring based on diversity irrespective of merit, expertise and background. It will look pretty odd or else Intel can/could definitely hire a philosophy Ph.D as a process Engineer. It will not make any difference to Intel.

Nobody’s intellectual skills/expertise is needed, just a worker to dance to the tunes of management ( who in 95% of cases have no idea ) and you can be assured that within a quarter if not earlier, the rules will change. In the name of business need hardly there are any cross talks between inter groups, nobody knows/wants to know what may be missing in their own/related upstream/downstream/remote chains. Under such a case the only rule of the jungle is to eat thy flesh and survive.

Hope this will change for good this time. However I doubt it, as a piecemeal approach will not work and a whole structural change is needed internally. Intel as I know is a not a company to break itself and grow.

So..... let’s wait and gossip till then... for the birth of a new monster/death of our own!

Hey OP, I did not deserved to go out the way I did despite a stellar 2015, but due to the decisions made under BK's leadership my 19 year career in Intel was over and tainted with the no rehire label. So no way I will feel sorry for BK.

June 14 2018 — Someone reports the affair after hearing about it. An investigation ensues

Why did the person report the ended affair? Where did you the specific gate?

2008 — Affair starts

2011 — Non-fraternization policy starts

2013 — BK becomes CEO

20?? — Affair ends

June 14 2018 — Someone reports the affair after hearing about it. An investigation ensues

June 21 — BK is out

OP is right, some of this doesn’t add up. Case in point, if this non-fraternization policy is a hard ban applied to all managers, why is the other party in the affair (a manager then and now) still working at Intel?

BK should have been bounced long ago, but the BoD should have been honest about the reasons (poor performance) and spared his family some grief.

Did you read the minutes of the annual shareholder meeting? BK took over, and AB left ill unable to close the meeting. BK also didn't have a letter in the annual report this year. Clearly they wanted him to make a graceful exit on his own, but he was unwilling, claiming all of the strategy decisions of the board as his own. Eventually, I believe it came to this, since he refused to give up power, when they wanted him out.

Well written, starts with the BoD and AB and all of that lot