I've seen this happen a few times. What's the point of laying somebody off if you're going to allow them to return? Especially if they're given a severance? Why pay somebody to leave and then welcome them back to the company? What exactly am I missing here?
9 replies (most recent on top)
There has onny been one retirement package, about 2013 or 14 (enhanced retirement package). Before and after that one time, it is just retirement with no special package. With theses actions, any package has to do with separation, without retirement being a factor.
@OP+1kJ0eZJ6 I agree it's like putting broken parts back on a new car and expecting something different. There have been several rounds of layoffs at Intel in the past 10 years, most of the folks impacted left with a juicy severance landed another job and have came back at higher grades making more. Intel is a broken wheel when it comes to management, if your part of the cool kids club you will always have a home at Intel regardless of how you perform
The entire concept behind a layoff is that a position is being eliminated, and that the person who is occupying that position is no longer needed. It isn't necessarily that the person is a poor performer and not of possible value to the company - simply that whatever function they're serving is no longer needed. If you're the elephant trainer at the circus, and the circus gets rid of its elephants... they don't need an elephant trainer, even if you're the best elephant trainer on the planet. If the circus gets elephants next year, then they need a trainer and might hire you back.
Now, if the layoff is a game of musical chairs, so to speak where there are 10 elephant trainers and the circus decides they only need 5... well, then being one of the 5 let go may be an indicator of relative performance and the circus might not want to rehire you in the future (ACT & the stock level 4s). Or maybe you were among the oldest of the 5? (Or youngest, to provide the illusion of non-discrimination.) Or the highest paid.
Lots of reasons folks are laid off, many of which are not performance based and shouldn't preclude re-hiring someone in the future if their skillset is needed.
The fault is with both the supervisors and the employees. If you don't tell other people how critical your work is regularly, then no one knows how critical your work is. If your supervisor is unaware how critical your work is despite your lack of information, there are also at fault. If both are laid off, then higher ups are just laying people off without any clue things really work.
When you find out just how critical someone is, then you often have to hire them back with much higher pay. Money 1) helps salve a lot of hurt feelings and 2) even with the increased pay, you know they're punching way above their salary weight so paying them more isn't a big deal at all. A single person in the right role can boost the productiveness of dozens or even tens of thousands of people, and oftentimes that's only apparent in hindsight.
Assuming you leave under good terms you can actually be hired 3 times by Intel, well at least you could in the past. Not everybody is laid off during these reductions. A lot of the people who take VSP or retirement would have easily survived the forced reductions. It makes sense for Intel to hire back experienced workers with a good employment record with the company. They may have a unique skillset, usually ramp up fast, and are familiar with the company policies and procedures. It can be good for the employee too, it is easy to negotiate higher grades, better base pay and bonus multipliers as well as hiring perks like stock grants.
I have seen this happen after most workforce reductions during the past 20 years. Intel always cuts too far and them when business conditions improve they need Intel experienced people fast. This makes rehires more valuable than an RCG or new hire even with industry experience so the company will pay the premium price to get a worker who can contribute in far less time than a totally new employee. In a few years you will see a wave of familiar faces returning.
@fsz+1kJ0eZJ6 "they just knew the right people and who's backsides to kiss"
LMFAO. Couldn't agree more
Seen it many times & intel is stating individuals are open for rehire this time round too.
It's PR.
Intel is a publicly traded company, it has to appease the markets and the investors within it.
When the corporate strategy isn't going to plan they have to make tactical decisions at the cost of business strategy.
After a quarter or 2 investors are focusing somewhere else and back to normal it goes.
Unlikely. Especially this time around.
I've seen this as well. Useless people that were (finally) laid somehow manage to get rehired. I've also seen a few take the retirement package, leave for a year or two, then return.
I know of two rehires working in NEX that should not have been rehired, no measurable contributions ever, they just knew the right people and who's backsides to kiss.