Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

I think Intel should lose their rights for being negligent, lying to customers, manipulating the stock market, monopolizing (Dell & Intel) Guaranteed sales, steeling IP from AMD. etc.

What right they should lose?
They cant buy out any more employees after termination. So employees should sue on masses to reveal the underpinnings of their monopoly. That means no paying them.
They will need to get rid of that stupid focal system that is easy to cheat someone out of their job, just coz you don't like them.
HR needs to stop backing up managers, if they go against State policies, they need to get fired on the spot. And, this needs to be consistent.
No More binge hiring.
Alder Lake is 10 nm but they changed their TDP to higher voltage, they liked about P core and M core. AMD still better
They need to stop selling , gimmicky features, like DDR5 and PCIE5, there is not enough transistors in their stupid processor to drive the higher speed. That means that the address space it there but not benefit with actually achieving high speeds, reviewers are finding this out as we speak.

RT and unethical BK absolutely practiced age discrimination, the data is so obvious, the EEOC should make a huge example out of intel, a $1B fine might cause pause before corporations throw 50 year olds out just to hire the same identical exact skills weeks later from young recent college graduates. EEOc reach out, memos exist

Why would it @kuzkz? That was your decision to make, and yours alone. No one pushed you into making it.

On that note... I had heard that anyone that was ISP/VSPed (not talking about ERPed) in 2016 wouldn't be allowed back for rehire. I know someone that's back and she was a VSP. Looks like they are loosening up or simply not checking?

Would this new Intel class action regarding age descriminatuon include not only “layoffs” but also the employees that were forced and coerced into “early” retirement in 2016? I certainly hope so!

In my case, I was put on redeployment because I was a lower grade level (36) and my position was moved to Costa Rica. I was considered a content expert in my field. Yet they are still hiring RCG (recent college grads) by the hundreds with no chance for older "retired" employees to get a foot in the door. Clever maneuvering the jobs to overseas to pay even less $ for low paying positions and pushing out the people in the US who had been there for over 15 years. Yes we got good severance packages but many of us were not ready to retire. Intel left us no options though by moving the jobs overseas. Lost a lot of respect for what i considered "my" company because of it.

Intel also feed a line a about the trade act retraining and extended benefits. It start with all of us being eligible, then after the lay offs they revised the number to grand total of 5, all from the soft ware group. Nothing for the factory which took the biggest hit. All from Oregon unemployment, trade act specialist. So not hear say......and the nasty email that couldn’t be printed or forwarded or saved about how if you didn’t take the offer you would be payed off with out severance? Talk about duress....

any updates here? i hope they stick it to intel and charge those crooks bk and rt... put them on the stand where they belong for age discrimination.

laid off in 2016 after 20 years. Never got anything less than Succesful with L3 stock except in the last year (2016) when I was given a Successful with SSL4. I was 54 years and had just started in a new group. Prev manager/old group did the focal. The manager who gave me the low SSL was my manager for only 4 months. This is how Intel treats its long term employees - I gave everything to the company.

Based on upper management direction, regardless of how good of your work performance, if you were over 60 years old, Intel usually gave out RSU Stock levels 4 or 5 to these workers during Focal Review. Intel planned a few years ahead to setup layoff criteria Stock Level 4/5 to get rid of this group. May 2016 layoff was definitely related to age discrimination.

@d2vek, exact thing happened to me in 2016 as well in SC. Provided tons of supporting emails to Intel legal, but in the end, the “committee” dismissed my case without explanation.

When the officers get compensated in the millions & the company makes billions per month in after tax dollars, they have no right to discriminate based on age or anything else for that matter - though age discrimination is what they can be charged with. I have documented evidence that there was age discrimination & have contacted someone today after I read the 5/25/2018 article on WSJ. This is a country where we obey the laws and anyone violating it must face the consequences, irrespective of the statute of limitations. That is just because they ask you to sign the NDA, does not mean that they can get away with it. Get it! - This comment was posted on 5/31/2018am pacific time.

I was a victim of both age discrimination as well as ethnic discrimination in 2016. Intel legal did not agree and dismissed my case.

Intel Corp. is currently under investigation for the 2015/2016 layoffs as a result of age discrimination complaints that have been filed against them by individuals that have been affected. For some reason the EEOC is not in a hurry to bring the case to court; however, the data that was provided by the company is now expected t undergo statistical analysis to verify the claims and produce a finding of rule violations. Government agencies are not known for their speed of execution; however, the fact that the charges are still being investigated indicates that the EEOC has enough prima facie evidence to pursue the case to the end.

After 31 years at Intel I get laid off after an excellent review. They force me into the infamous "They didn't get fired they left for retirement". How many upper management memos said that. Never the truth to be told. Now I don't even get the chance for full participation in my retirement plan. You are forced under duress to sign a paper stating you give up some of your rights. You can't even leave the room unless you sign it. If that doesn't smell of some kind of unlawful act. Labor board needs to investigate the Intel practices.

According to the : Intel Disclosure Document at this link : http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2015/08/intel_layoffs_by_the_numbers_h.html : the chart : Intel layoffs, by age group :

it shows how many people were let go by age group.

But the math is wrong on the chart :

1. If you add up all the percentages you get a total of 30.6

2. all the people laid off over 40 gives a total of 27.2

3. To get the real percentages divide 27.2 by 30.6 equals 88.88 %

4. Hell...the chart is a right skewed bell curve, you do not need a degree in mathematics to see it

( my degree is in computer science ...but I have seen enough SPC charts in my day to notice data manipulation ... and scaling the chart down by 1/3 makes it look flat )

1. I worked for Intel for over 17 years, and I was laid off in 2014 at the age of 46.

So there is your evidence Anonymous111769

If you need my to do any more math that I learned in the 8th grade...let me know.

This doesn't sound right to me "older employees have been getting excellent marks, great feedback and then suddenly hit with a grade reduction (which is completely incongruent from the reviews). Then, forced retirement. And, just shy of their full retirement packages**"

Something sounds off to me there, OP. if they are older employees, and forced out just shy of full retirement packages, then either they haven't worked at Intel for 15 yrs (most have if they're older), or they're younger than age 55 (Intel's earliest rule which is what I retired under).

Can you expound on their ages and years of service? Something isn't adding up to me (literally. lol). All you need to be is age 55 + 15 yrs of service to receive retirement benefits. Granted, the ONLY thing the Rule of 55 doesn't get you is accelerate vesting of RSUs but you get everything else the Rule of 75 gets you (including being age 60 or age 65. One of both of those aren't called Rules, but they get full retirement benefits).

Are you action minded? Check out our web site: PDX-TIE.ORG

Use the search bar to find content by key word (for example "age discrimination").

If you are an ex-Intel employee, you can also join our confidential mailing list. The web site contains instruction for doing this via email.

Actions speak louder than words.

So what are we going to do? Complain and do nothing? I would suggest we ( impacted workers over 40) To file a complaint with whatever agency and SUE Intel for age discrimination. shall we join forces? Anyone know a lawyer that may be willing to work on a contngency?

Man oh man. Intel just forced my brother into a retirement after a 30 year stint. He has a daughter in Nursing school. Now he has to hit the pavement because the package is poor. Give a company 30 years, have a degree in physics, and save billions in lost profit because of his team performance. Intel management stays put as usual. Not that it would help any, but it would be nice to see sll those managers out of work. Just a thought

Intel is saying the layoffs were merit-based, by using the stock levels, and it just happens to be a coincidence that the ages of the laid off workers skewed older. This alone is not illegal (since Intel is claiming another reason for the layoffs instead of age). What MIGHT be illegal, however, is the tendency for older workers to get lower stock levels despite being successful in the first place. Somebody needs to pull the data and compare the age breakdown of successful + L4/L5 stock. If that is a skewed distribution, then it certainly sounds like clear-cut age discrimination.

And by the way, whatever the discriminating company sends to EEOC gets sent to you from EEOC. So what I am saying is, you get to read it, and use it as evidence against them.

If they libel you, lying federal investigators is a felony under 18 USC 1001.

I have worked at Intel 3 times, at 3 different cities. There is no question that they let people go I would say older than age 38. Age 38 is about the top of the pay scale for a design engineer. I have worked at other Fortune 500 computer chip companies where this is also the case. At defense contractors, you tend to see some older people.

I do currently have EEOC actions against 2 other large technology companies (not involving Intel). What I can tell you is that you can't prove discrimination based on company demographics. You have to prove that YOU were let go, or not hired because of age. This is hard to do, but not impossible.

I can also tell you that getting a lawyer to help you with an EEOC age discrimination case is very difficult, unless you are able to generate some proof, and get some traction through the EEOC complaint process. The EEOC complaint process is a long one. But it does force the discriminating company to write letters to the EEOC to defend themselves against the discrimination charge. If you get lucky, they will libel you in the process, and then you can get them for libel, too.

The EEOC needs to get informed and involved in this. In 2010 timeframe the EEOC found justifiable cause against Intel on age discrimination during the 1000 manager reduction. Obviously the penalties were too minor. In this most recent mid-2015 layoff, the statistics are very clear, this was an age discrimination target. Intel is hiring at the same time as it is firing. To say they are trimming the workforce due to sluggish PC demand is disingenuous because they aren't reducing headcount, they are simply replacing older with younger. Intel cannot defend is record, given these actions, on why their US based workforce, most of which is outside silicon valley, remains so young compared to the average American workforce. The EEOC should stick it to them, followed by a class action lawsuit. Hurt their pocket books, the only thing BK seems to respect.

Intel provided each employee who was laid off with a spreadsheet show the ages and jobs that were laid off. It's true, most employees laid off were 40 and above.

If my numbers are correct, extracting from the Intel Disclosure Document:

80% of affected employees were over 40

66% of affected employees were over 45

48% of affected employees are over 50.

In intel, engineer is mass production worker regardless the skill set. The experienced engineer costs more. They are always the layoff target. In mature business, engineering know-how is known, this practice will same money. But this does not work for business where intel is not dominate. Intel has little success outside the CPU business. Intel mobile failure is typical example. Any business intel acquired will be destroyed after few years in intel management.

Actually, you don't have to prove that Intel intended to eliminate primarily employees more than 40 years old. For age discrimination "Disparate Impact" applies, which means that a statistical analysis of the people fired/laid-off compared to the full employee base qualifies. Unfortunately the courts have been making it easier for employers to fight against this statistical analysis in recent years.

Evidence means you have exactly data to show they were intended eliminate employees that were 40 years old above.

You need evidence to prove what they did was wrong or unlawful.

Yes there is pretty obvious as they mixed few under 40 employees with over 40 despite being long term employees. Intel has been planning this for last three years by giving Successful rating and then stock level 4/5 to use it when they feel right to relieve older employees. T

do you have evidence that this layoff is targeting employees age 45 and above?