Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Definitely! There were cases in some department that employees in that category were kept not because of medical or other personal reasons, but the upper management thought "there was misunderstanding from her manager when giving SSL4". So even on paper things could be made legimite, there was definitely discrimination during the handling of case by case. If anyone identify a good law firm, please post it here!

Listen, dickweed. There has been hundreds of ISP folks threatening to sue Intel, but absolutely nothing has resulted. Just give it up. You can't just sue employers for being assholes.

Anonymous144509 -- Perfectly legal? Ruining people's reputation isn't about "legal", it's about "damage". Thus legal has nothing to do with it...when a jury of your peers are involved. Good luck with that thinking in California, Oregon, and Washington. Intel will lose hands down

Sorry, but what BK said is completely legal, although he was a dick about it. A previous employer being an asshole after laying you off is not grounds for a lawsuit.

I have the same question as @144334. Has anybody contacted the law firm in San Francisco that was posted previously? I keep hearing that ISP folks have talked to various lawyers who say there is no case against Intel. But has anybody contacted the San Fran law firm and if so, what did they say? Seems like there is a lot of interest in this thread as there have been 24 posts in 9 hours. So it seems like there could be a lot of other people interested if there was a case.

Just because Intel put on circuit that ssl4 is now below expectation isn't the issue. First, that circuit Focal was posted "January 2015" and the people ISP were let go for getting SSL4 in 2014. That means even if you knew the new standard, the retroactive part was not documented or told to the employees. Also, most managers freely admitted that they did not now SSL4 was the new BE. Third, BE rating before were followed up with an action plan so the employee "knew" they had an issue to deal with, but this was no longer the case and hidden in the policy and practices. Which leads to the last point, BK himself on July 15 end of day employee meeting "admitted" that the policy was not followed or practices properly. Thus BK himself admitted that Intel just screwed all the Successful rated employees. Take these simple facts before a jury of your peers with the big bad Intel on the other side of the table .... game over.

Yes, only grade 7 and above have the possibility of a SSL4, so you may have a case there. But Intel will say that it is SSL4/5 for 2+ times, so hence the "repeat low performers" BK explanation.

@144368: Note the word 'recently' in there. That change was not properly advertised (intentionally I believe) which is why so many were blindsided by the ISP.

Second, there are many reasons why an SSL4 could be given, taking sabbatical is one of them, medical leave is another, being at the high end of a grade is a third.

Routing "below average" would dispose of half the workforce (obvoiusly), except those in HR and other holy groups. That hasn't happened, has it? Statistically the group of employees ranked lower than successful SSL3 would cover much more than ~2% of the workforce.

Therefore it is safe to conclude that the ISP had nothing to do with performance whatsoever, that your bozo in chief said so doesn't make it so. Given who was targeted the objective was to discard people over 40, possibly closeness to retirement also a factor (saving some retirement benefits there).

Enought talk about ISP folks filing lawsuits. Intel will say that folks who got SSL4/5 last year AND another SSL4/5 in in the previous 3 years are repeat underperformers. Method is completely objective, with special considerations for people on medical leave, etc. So, sorry, you ISP folks have no case. Please just move one.

Yep, since 80-90% of Intel people get "Successful" for Focals and since "Below Expectations" was recently eliminated, Intel needed a way to separate out the below average folks for ISP, and of course that was "Successful" with SSL4/5. That is why no lawyers will touch ISP cases.

Just do a search in Circuit, Intel's internal employee web site. SSL4 is below average, similar to the old BE focal rating. So, those who got SSL4/5 should have been aware that they are below average, even with a Successful rating.

What is in the document as BK said? About ssl4 is a lower level than ssl3? Yeah I see that. Ssl3 is not as good as ssl2, either. Someday if some one with ssl3 gets laid off because the others are given ssl2, the same applies - it is in the document!

Anonymous144334 - It's true, they my internet provider informed me of the subpoena. What's funny is I haven't said anything wrong, but I have stated facts about the ISP process used.

what about the law firm out of San Fran someone posted about a while back? said they were prepping a case against intel for running their stupid mouths publicly like that.....any updates there?

also to those talking about subpoenas and tracking IP and MAC addresses....is this fear mongering or you know someone who was subjected to that?

thelayoffcom is giving Intel everything. Be careful if you are an Intel employee.

Anonymous144321 -- It is a fact Intel legal/attorneys are monitoring this site. They are documenting everything everyone is saying and they are getting court orders to subpoena every ones IP and MAC. That's how Intel rolls. You think BK's comments were legally wrong? Wait till you see how Intel is using the courts to stomp on your freedom of speech rights!

Folks, I live in Oregon and workers rights ARE protected against slander and damages as a result. This could be in the millions. The comment from BK ""we got rid off our undesirable, useless, unproductive trash" is completely open for a massive lawsuit. It looks like BK's arrogance and his mindset of being king and above the law has got the best of him.

Anonymous144312 spouting off communist views with no facts. Everyone is proving their case yet Anonymous144312 and his friends post fiction that support nothing. Perhaps another Intel attorney posting this garbage? Probably!

You Intel lifers have just been spoiled for so long as the rest of us have been through a few layoffs and/or companies shutting down. Just because you have 20 years of service at Intel, does that exempt you from any type of layoffs? If anything, you are the exact types BK should have targeted for ISP.

Anonymous144308 -- you sound like an Intel attorney who's forced to be on this site to defend the incredibly stupid ISP action BK and Intel just did. As a matter of fact, one could argue based on your logic that BK should be fired....just for stock performance and sales alone!!! Go back to your office and get some more subpoenas out there so you can find out who I am!

As many of Intel people know, Focals is only based on your performance for the previous year. So bringing up your prior years accomplishments is not valid and should not be used to defend your ISP. I was employee of the month at MCD back in 1995, but i never use that on my resume to brag about my past accompliments.

Anonymous144306 <--If BK is so "accurate" then why did he use "deception" to lay people off? Is lying an Intel value now? Does that mean being "open, honest, and direct" has been removed from Intel's values? Where do you people come from? You are the one promoting "inaccuracies", and you are probably proud of it.

As BK accurately stated, it's in the documentation. If you disagree with the CEO, then you definitely should not be working at Intel.

Anonymous144292 posting can be disregarded. He implied people gaming the "successful" system for years is so inaccurate you can call him a libtard. LIBTARD = "A liberal Democrat who spouts out lies". Intel changed the system or rules that Anonymous144292 says people were "gaming" in January 2015, and then retroactively applied those rules to 2014. Intel is who "gamed" the system, didn't inform employees, and use them to layoff people.

It is about fairness. Has it been done in a fair and honorable way? I am an isp. I have over 5 patents. I was given ssl 1 or 2 until I had this hypocritical manager a few years ago. I might post a threat to my manager's position but value more to the company than most of my peers.

Sorry, but I totally agree with BK. He took the opportunity to get rid of long timers who have been just cruising at Intel and gaming the system to be "Successful" for so many years.

I've talked with a few lawyers about BK public meritocracy speech on the 15th of July after he fired all the ISP employees. All these lawyers agreed that BK's statement was public, published in the Oregonian and Business Insider, implied ISP were "performance issues", stated Intel did not follow or practice it's own policies correctly, and harmed those who were laid off ability to seek "like" work outside of Intel. All the lawyers could see the "discrimination" issue, but the right to work states give Intel great flexibility. All lawyers agreed that BK violated the ISP agreement everyone signed, but none of them would take on this case. Is there a case if you can't find a lawyer or law firm to take on this issue? There is no case folks. Lawyers and law firms aren't interested. You have to lick your wounds and move on.

sounds reasonable.......can someone shed some light on this?