Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

q n a from bum

this was posted in the blog. it is q n a from one of the bums.

even though BK agreed that managers gave SSL4 without thinking, he did not admit that layoff was done unfairly.

.

Q: Do you expect managers to use SSL 4 as a performance management message?

A: So that’s a good one. I’ve gotten that question a lot. And I’m going to be completely transparent and open here. One of the most disappointing things I’ve gotten from this reduction was the number of people who have sent me notes, even managers who weren’t leaving, who have sent me notes who have said “gosh, I have just peanut buttered SSL 4 across my organization” and things like that. If you go back and read the guidelines and focal documents, it talks about that there are at least 2 measurements of your performance. There’s the rating, the outstanding, successful, BE, IR. And there are things like the stock. And even though the stock level has a fixed number attached to it, the relative rank of the stock is meant to separate the people within those ratings. There’s a difference between stock level 1 and 2 within an outstanding. The same is true for a successful who can have stock level 1-5. Successful with a stock level 4 is just barely above the curve. In general, if you get that, and what we tried to do this time, is it wasn’t that you got it one time. You have to get it more than once. You had to get it 2 out of the past 3 times. That is clearly a message that you aren’t improving, and you aren’t coming up that curve. So yes, I would tell you that in the future, that is very likely to be a point where we’ll draw the line. What we try to do though is to not cut too deeply. So if there are enough BE and IR we might stop it there but if not, then we will go up into stock level 4. I don’t think we’ll ever let it go above SSL4, but I’m not going to promise, but I can’t imagine a situation like that. You would almost be then talking about a general layoff. But SSL4 is not going to be an uncommon cutoff for these things. It’s in the documentation, it’s in our behaviors, and we’ve just let it slack over the last few years. In order for us to be competitive, we have to get back the discipline in that space as well.

by
| 737 views | | 7 replies (last July 18, 2015) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+CwJiAwL

7 replies (most recent on top)

BK is a lying sack of shit. SSL 4 was never used as a performance message. He wants to get rid of expensive white guys plain and simple. Every Monday at JFCC there are 50-100 new hires coming on board. We just wasted 16B on another company he'll f up. This isn't about saving money. This is all about that BK wants to hit numbers that he think will make him a hero. HR and BK are lying about all of this layoff. Meritocracy isn't changing the rules in a back room to fire old white guys. Whatever BK has always been a piece of shit and he's continued to be. F him.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1sOY+CwJiAwL

what an acronym "BUM". The idiots at helm and kiss asses in this company are real bums, no wonder they BUM. BK is BUM-in-Chief, taking down the company. I wonder if and those responsible for this framed up ISP even sleep at nights. This action by them ruining good families will haunt them and their families. Even if they have made enough money, they will never have a happy life.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hWj+CwJiAwL

Everyone here missed the real issue. BE is no longer part of the guidelines. When managers use to give out BE it was not only clear you had an issue, an action plan was developed to move the employee in the right direction. Or to keep the employee from getting an IR next focal. With the new focal guidelines this isn't clear. Intel has cut pay raises, cut 401K contributions, so why would an employee think twice about getting lower stocks? Most the success rated employees never got a counseling verbal or writing saying they were having performance issues. Intel used this as an excuse to get ride of employes by grade (wage), age, geo in order to get funds for a chip plant they recently purchased. Two departments I know that lost 2 employees to this ISP just hired new employees to fill those positions in different geos. This is a class action waiting to happen. Intel screwed people and Intel knows it!!! What's worse, Intel publicly ruined the reputations of those employees who were doing the right thing, doing a great job, and were blindsided.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @CJr+CwJiAwL

Best thing to do is find another place to work. I was informed of my ISP on Jun 15th and had a verbal offer on Friday June 19th form another company. I pocketed 1 yr pay based on # of yrs I have worked there. I can now sleep at nights. I will never work for another big corp like Intel. They have a lot of people and firms just in charge of finding ways to lay off people. There are also lots f rats in this company. I got a bump in my salary, better benefits. This is the best thing that happened to me this year.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @TPe+CwJiAwL

BK is talking about the SSL definition, which is not really in dispute. What he is missing or avoids talking about is whether or how the performance message had been actually communicated to the employees who were given SSL 4 or 5 or whether the managers had used ssl 4 or 5 properly. I think he was trying to justify the first ssl based layoff by making an exaggeration.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @VSq+CwJiAwL

BK is talking about the SSL definition, which is not really in dispute. What he is missing or avoids talking about is whether or how the performance message had been actually communicated to the employees who were given SSL 4 or 5 or whether the managers had used ssl 4 or 5 properly. I think he was trying to justify the first ssl based layoff by making an exaggeration.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @o2x+CwJiAwL

What BS! Now he is hinting that SSL 3, or higher, might be on the table for future layoffs? I guess because those that are remaining are going to be driven to not be Successful with SSl 4/5 that they will have to dip into the Successful SSl 3 pool or higher for the next round? What crap.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @E89+CwJiAwL

Post a reply

: