Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

I have a co-worker who went from seven years of Exceeds ratings to recently getting a Below Expectations. He said he was given no warning there was any kind of issue with his work. He's in his mid-50s. So if they eliminated the rating, it wasn't universal.

With all of the backlash from employees and very bad PR, was it worth it for Intel to do this for a less than 2% headcount reduction? Great job, BK!

Where Intel messed up was that when they made that change, they forgot to change their documentation. The Focal Guidelines still refer to a Repeat Low Performer as those having recieved an IR or BE Focal rating in 2 of the last 3 years. They should have removed the reference to BE and changed it to say an IR with SSL5 or S (Successful) with SSL4 in 2 of the last 3 years. Of course if they did that, it would be transparent again and they would still have the same problem with employees going to HR to fight it. So I guess it was intentional the way Intel did it. They did not want the employees to catch on to the fact that they were being set up to be laid off through being a Repeat Low Performer, unbeknownst to the employee. What a horrible, horrible company to work for!!

I remember I think it was about 10 years ago a focal rating of below expectations was for level 4 stock

The problem for Intel was people would fight be rating through open door tying up resources and many would win.

But Intel decided to say successful with level 4. They were Successful who is going to fight a successful rating? Most assumed they were ok and thought budget was crappie. Very devious and deceptive and dishonest and lacking integrity.

Intel makes employees every year take code of conduct class about integrity and being transparent. Bk failed the code of conduct and committed fraud.

If we are in such dire straights that we need to fire people left and right, why is there 75-100 new hires every Monday at new employee orientation?

This is a witchhunt. BK is targeting old people, old and white better, old white males best.

Manufacturing Bullshit reasoning simply so you don't have to cop to what is going on. They are now going after ssl 3 folks today.

http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-on-layoffs-meritocracy-2015-7

This is BK saying that all those laid off failed and deserved to go as a matter of "meritocracy". That's mass defamation.

By the way, none of the high level execs, including CEOs who said all of the stupid things in writing and who violated competition law (requiring multi-billion $$$ payment to AMD and the EU) were fired. Craigslist Barret as CEO wasted 10 Billion dollars on bad acquisitions ... what happened to him? He retired to become Chairman of the Board! :)

BK admitting the company screwed workers in this round of layoffs: ""That same philosophy, that if you're let go for performance reasons that you're not eligible for rehire, has actually been a guideline for Intel for years," he said. "The problem is we haven't, with discipline, applied it. So we said: We're trying to build a different company. You don't orchestrate change by doing things the same way."" Source: http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2015/07/intel_ceo_addresses_employees.html#incart_river

Here's Intel in public local news source: http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2015/07/intel_ceo_addresses_employees.html#incart_river

And yes, the whole theme of this article is how Intel/BK screwed Intel employees...PUBLICLY!!!

Again, Intel changed it's policy on focal guidelines 2015 to be vague and open to interpretation. The problem with this guideline change is BK used them for "PAST FOCALS".

That's what makes BK a untrustworthy bastard in the minds of those who've been laid off, and those of us still here. There's no trust at Intel.

The first time in 19 years at Intel I heard the words "poor performance" was when my managers took me into an office on June 15th and read off a piece of paper, "Due to the poor performance in your focal you are being involuntarily separated from Intel". I asked my manager when had he ever told me prior to June the 15th I was performing poor, he told me he had not stated that and that HR instructed them to use that verbiage. Thus I was blind sided by the termination, I wasn't aware I was a performance issue, and I was never verbally or in writing told I was a performance issue. All success or above and a SSL4.

This is wrong no matter how you look at it. Is this the 1930s?

I have honestly wondered why no one has brought up bringing a defamation of character lawsuit? As stated in other posts, intel labelled every employee involved in this ISP as a "repeat poor performer" without any documentation to back it up. I have read over and over how people were surprised about the employees who were targeted for termination. The last thing anyone would of thought of them was "repeat poor performer".

Didn't anyone notice how grumpy BK was over the fact that the termination letter had been leaked to the Oregonian? The fact that he felt compelled to make a public statement amending the reasons for the layoffs to include poor PC sales, and ridding intel of redundant positions while glossing over the "repeat poor performer" factor--which was the one and only reason mentioned in the termination notice--shows that someone, somewhere at intel, realized that labeling employees who were successful as "repeat poor performers" might be considered defamatory. Not to mention that those affected are not even eligible to be rehired attaches further stigma to an already painful and stressful situation. The fact that BK had the gall to stand up at BUM and say these policies had always been in place--just never enforced--is laughable. Okay, BK. Put the documentation where your mouth is. Give the reporters and the employees the HR guidelines showing where this is policy. Come on! Where's your transparency now?

From the research I have done online, the law takes one's professional reputation seriously. In a defamation of character case, one does not have to prove actual damages. So what if you have already found a new job? So what if you are going to start your own company? It doesn't matter. You have been labelled. You have been stigmatized. Your professional reputation which has taken years to build has been tarnished in one fell swoop. The fact that the termination letter was made public is also irrelevant. Just the fact that intel put it writing in the termination notice is enough. Especially since intel cannot seem to produce any documentation showing Successful SSL4/5 was the equivalent of repeat poor performer or that the employees affected, as well as their direct managers had any indication this was the case.

I am not an attorney, but if it were my professional reputation that had been smeared and sullied by a bunch of bean counting technocrats, then that is the avenue of recourse I would take. My spouse was affected by this and the upheaval and turmoil it has caused us this past month has been exhausting. Best of luck to all those involved and to all those who are left, I'd start looking if I were you.

The wrong doing is that Intel did not document any poor performance with employees laid off with successful focals and ssl4. The wrong doing is that Intel told these employees they were doing find, in lots of cases great, in some cases choose between pay raise and stocks, and other you are the top of your pay. The wrong doing is that Intel should have documented and counsel employees regarding "Below Exception" focal rankings. You should have been told where you were failing, where you were behind, why you were below expectations, and how to get back on track. None of that happened.

But the biggest wrong doing of all was Intel publicly told the world they laid off IR and "poor performing" employees. Intel destroyed your reputations. Intel openly and blatantly disregarded all of you like you were some 3rd world tool who made no difference. Intel blatantly made it difficult for you all to get new jobs. None of this makes sense since "at will" meant Intel could have simply said "Thanks for working for us, but we are lying you off". No reason was needed. When BK mention Meritocracy in his address to Intel employees, BK was calling you all "poor performers" to Intel employees and to the world.

This is a class action suit waiting to happen. Somebody needs to come back here with a reputable firm who will take you all and take on Intel. Take this before a jury in, let's say Oregon, Intel loses like an old rage doll.

Now go forth and take this corporation on!!!

This is good and well articulated thread - I was let go a few weeks ago, and I am proud that I worked with guys like you. Time to move on, we'll all be fine. No need to expand further on SSL4 issues, it was a scam of epic proportions. It was illegal and Intel will pay for it one way or another. I wish if BK can be held personally liable for this, not sure if a civil case would be an option here but I'd love to see it - he's amassing an incredible wealth while rigging the rules.

I can relate to #119727 - I have very similar experience and feel deceived and unjust. I complained to HR and upper management with evidence supportin my argument, only to realize that they are a team with the same goal - get the selected employees out asap no matter what they said. To me the most difficult part to accept is not the loss of the job but the reason they cited for it - repeat poor performance.

Here are the facts as they relate to me. For the past two years, I was awarded a Successful with SSL4. When I questioned my manager about the focal award, I was told that since I was at the top of my pay grade, this was a typical award. My manager never once mentioned that the SSL4 was related in any way to my performance but rather to focal budget and my already high salary.

I met all of my performance and project goals, and received great feedback during my one on ones with my manager, and within my group. I even went above and beyond in taking on a project that no one else wanted and making real headway towards its completion. Therefore, I had no reason to question my manager's explanation that the SSL4 was tied to budget and NOT to my performance.

That is, until June 15th. Imagine the shock, confusion, and betrayal I felt when I was informed by my manager that I was being terminated for repeat poor performance due to the level of stock I had been awarded. I had been successful, but not successful enough. What kind of BS is that? Now, Krzanich is saying that SSL4 is just ahead of the curve and to get two SSL4s means that you are just getting by and not improving. That is like your professor flunking you in a class because you got a C+ on the midterm and a C+ on the final. Obviously, you didn't improve, so no credit for you! Never mind this would fly in the face of university policy. To change the rules with no one knowing is capricious, unfair, and underhanded.

I think for many of those affected by this ISP, that is the real issue. The use of SSL4/5 as a performance criteria was unknown and undocumented in intel's HR employee manual as well as the focal guidelines. In the BUM, Krzanich stated that since there weren't enough people with IRs, then Successful SSL4/5 were used for this round of ISP. He said he didn't foresee ever going as high as SSL3, but he wouldn't rule that out for future ISPs. That is not a meritocacy. That is a fascist dictator arbitrarily deciding what criteria will be used in order to make his running of the company look better than it is.

Anonymous119523 is exactly right. There were managers who gave the option between a raise in pay or higher stocks. Nobody told the employees that a Successful focal with ssl4 was below average or was going to get you laid off. Yet BK tells employees in a public forum that SSL4 means you are below average (not exact words, but what he meant). So any employee who was laid off with a successful focal and ssl4 never knew they were below average. It was undocumented. It was untold. All the people who fit in this category were never given any action to improve. Never told they were in jeopardy of losing their jobs that most had for 15, 18, 20+ years. All of these employees were setup to be fired. By management that deceived them of what's going on. Back door deals and BK uses the words "it's a meritocracy". That was the lie of the century for BK, it was not a meritocracy, it was a corrupt management who needs money to by a useless factory and to fund 300 million in women joining the company. BK lied and took it out on hard working people. That's the facts, I don't care what the BK supporters here say, what happened.

Looks like there's some BK kiss as posting response as BK. BK is one moron driving Intel down to ruins, the board has lost confidence and his stupid business decisons are going to blow up in his face. But he will still leave with a golden parachute but destroying lives of long term loyal employees. Does this person have nay conscience and can he sleep at night. He will be haunted

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm If you know of anyone who got level 4 due to anything listed in link above there could be class action coming. Example currently in the foundry the recognition scores are I think 55 they are so low because 75% of the recognition is given out to employees doing trivial mediocre work. Just doing their job. But the thing they have in common is they are Muslim. You get an award for being Muslim. You get better goodies if your Muslim. Better level stock if your are Muslim. The Oregon Muslim manager during interviewing rejected a qualified woman with a Phd in favor of a Muslim with 2 BEs. The guy has never hired anyone external who wasn't Muslim.

If you know any man who got level 4 so the under-performing woman in the group could get promoted. I have seen that happen.

It's stock share level. The levels are 1 to 5, where 1 is a lot of stock and 5 is no stock. Job grade 7 and above can get these. Job grades 6 and under can get either 3 or 5. 1 is typically given to the people who get an "outstanding" focal review. 5 is usually given to people who had an "improvement required" focal review. SSL is given once a year as part of focal so it is delivered as part of the performance review and rating in what is called the pay letter, which includes your rating, any increase in pay, any increase in job grade, and your SSL. The issue that people are running into is that anyone who is rated "successful" and job grade 7 or above can get SSL 2, 3, or 4, and that 4 is given for reasons other than performance, such as managers giving a direct report SSL4 so that they can give a higher percent raise in their salary, or giving SSL4 because the person is in a new job role and still learning so s/he hasn't contributed as much yet in that role, or were on medical even though focal guidelines specifically say that they shouldn't be penalized for that. Many people I know that got laid off had MLOA, maternity leave, are close to retirement, etc.

Intel's Focal Guidelines states that Repeat Low Performer (RLP) employees are defined as those having received an IR (Improvement Required) or BE (Below Expectations) Focal rating (annual review) in 2 of the last 3 years. The problem with this is that BE is no longer used so it shouldn't even be in Intel's documentation anymore. Now Intel is saying getting a "Successful" rating and SSL4 in 2 of the last 3 years is equivalent to an RLP. But no where is this documented anywhere or has it ever been communicated to the employees that this is the case. It's just completely wrong and unjust the way Intel has handled this!!

Next year's SSL4 will be from this years SSL3.

Intel was very sneaky about this whole thing. Employees were completely blindsided. Nobody knew that SSL4 was equivalent to the old system of BE (Below Expectations). It was never documented in an employee's review or communicated verbally to these employees that SSL4 was a performance message. These employees were all rated "Successful" so they thought there was no problem.

To the journalist:

Stock level grants at Intel are based on subjective assessment by bunch of dept heads and the HR. The Stock Level range from 1 through 5. The process is fraught with favoritism and nepotism and if your group is represented by a weak manager that team gets short end of the stick. At no point in the last three years when this system was in place , employees where told that S/L 4 or 5 grant will be later treated as performance issue down the line. This whole scheme was orchestrated by top management and HR and the middle management and any one less that Management Committee Member (MCM) was even aware that S/L 4/5 will used as reason to layoff employees.

If you want the whole "real" story I could provide you with the details. Intel shafted employees...not IR employees...successful rated employees and them called them poor performers for the first time in all their years...15, 18, 20+ years of service.

It's a shame what BK and Intel did to these people, but the data shows he went after the older, higher grade employees. The data is out there, actually given to the employees.

ssl = stock share level