Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Unbelievable! even though I think most patent filings are lawyer's game. I think intel is really going down very fast. 14nm issues. PC issues. Moore law issue. No good news from Intel other than cutting costs by firing older employees and labelled them underperformer. Ruined their career and name

Anonymous123178, Unbelievable!!!This is Intel loss. Layoff someone with 20 patents and 3000 other Intel engineers to make room for Altera 3000 employees

Din(believes we got robed)

I was moved from one group into another and then loaned back for 10 months because they needed help. I was even told by my new manager that I did a lot of good work but he could not promote me because I could not be ranked to the new group. I also got Level 4 stock that year. So the word promotion and level 4 happened the same year is clear this was not a performance message. Then last year I spend a full year in the new group getting up to speed so I can understand the level 4 stock I got. I was 2 months away from 21 years, over 20 patents with several in the works but now I am considered a low performer. Yes my reputation has been ruined. Never received a bad review and never was told I had a performance issue.

Where are the attorney's when you need them? news media might be interested. Oregon newspaper that revealed the layoffs might be a good start.

No attorney replied my requests! Not sure about the others

Anyone else tired of people posting "Intel violated laws" but no attorney contact?

Understand The SSL definition is documented. But what he said about rehiring basically Telling the public that those terminated are low performers and intel will not hire them back ever. To future employers: Hire them at your own risk. why should we bare that low performance name for the rest of our career ???

To me, it is an implicit blacklist that will

Haunt me for my life

"It's in the documentation." -BK

Until somebody can convince BK to take back that statement, ISP folks and future laid off folks are out of luck.

Also, in the Focal Guidelines under Stock Budget Guidelines it states: "Stock distributions have been de-emphasized to allow for the delivery of the 'right message,' while staying within stock budget limits." So Intel wants to deliver the "right message" of being "successful", but wants to de-emphasize what the actual message of SSL4 truly means?

Your are exactly right #122058. Your last sentence is the most important one. How can Intel tell these ISP folks that they are repeat low performers when the definition of a repeat low performer in the Focal Guidelines is an IR or BE in 2 of the last 3 years. BE has not been used at all for years now. Intel never updated their documentation to reflect the fact that they are now using stock levels to determine the low performers who were rated "successful." BK likes to say that he is completely transparent and open. Well, this is a huge miss....not transparent at all!! I wish somebody from HR would chime in and explain this to everybody.

The issue is that the people terminated had no idea their performance was in question. It was documented they were successful. Maybe it was a bit naive of them to believe their managers when they were told the low stock awards were due to already high pay, focal budget, or whatever but that is no reason to publicly label then as repeat low performers. Blogs on Intel's own internal website document that remaining employees were shocked by those affected by this ISP. Repeat low performer would have been the last thing anyone would have called most of the people affected. This is why the reason given in the termination notice could be considered defamation. It goes against the professional reputation that most of those affected have built up during the course of their careers. It goes against the employees own documented performance reviews. Most importantly, it goes against Intel's own documented definition of repeat low performer.

It's illegal, period. Any lawyer or attorney will tell you that.