In my humble opinion the data says it all. Hi-Tech has always been a little ageist but Intel has excelled at being really bad in its behavior towards the labor force. Time and again Intel lays off hundreds, if not thousands, and then replaces those laid-off with contract labor. This last round's data definitely points an accusing finger at the issue of ageism. Intel's Grand Poobah's claim of having to do this layoff because Intel owes it to their shareholders is true, but it is still rubbish. Intel represents all that is wrong with the unrestrained profit-is-everything, greed-is-good mentality that prevails in this world today. Intel wants to show itself to the world as a progressive and caring employer. Unfortunately, such is not the case. I sincerely hope that one day when Intel pulls this crap they get burned so badly that the whole cesspool collapses on itself. I guess that sentiment goes for any other company whose behavior is a reflection of Intel's. I grew up in an era where a company's loyalty was to their employees as well as their shareholders. There existed the belief that the labor force was what made money for the company. Hence, it was a very valuable part of the company. This is not so anymore. One might look at what I've written and say that I am "resistant to change dude" (there should have been a comma between 'change' and 'dude', dude). Maybe I am, but I have always been receptive to change for the better. The fact is, we all are human beings. As workers we deserve to be respected and treated as valuable members of the corporate team.
8 replies (most recent on top)
You are wrong about being able to hire/fire who you want. There are laws that restrict people from playing king - in the US we have a Constitutional Republic, regardless of what it may seem like some days. But companies violate laws every day. You sound like a good candidate for CEO in fact - watch out BK!
If I was running a company, I should have the right to hire and fire who I want. If my company suffers because I believe younger people can be more productive and innovative, it would be my loss.
All the discussion on this string has been about salary. Yes, salary is the largest component of employee payments, but keep in mind that healthcare is a very large component as well. Also Intel is "self-insured" - to simplify this means that Intel pays providers to administer the plans and Intel pays all costs out of pocket (the Dr/hospital/treatment/medicine, etc). Further the data at the level of individual is available to HR. It would not surprise me at all if those people with the highest medical costs have been targeted for SSL4/5 or IR. Even if that was not the case, focusing on pushing people out by age does reduce costs significantly for healthcare as a 24 yr old consumes much less health expenses than a 60 year old. By the way RCG, your post, the one right below this doesn't make any sense. Work on your clarity please.
I agree with op. If this was a matter of simple meritocracy dollars and cents then the kind hearted and honorable intel would come offer long time employees an option to reduce salary in a role with less influnce. Taking "emotion" out of the equation if the only concern was $/unit output would this not make sense? Logically it seems there is a goal other than cost reduction. Since it does not look like there has been a reduction in overall hc or spending logically it means the old farts had to go so intel could pursue other interests. Arguably this makes sense from a "greed is good" world view. Dubious on the employees are our most important asset worldview. Even more dubious from a simple honorable and noble perspective.
Just a FYI to the last poster. We are ALL @ETQh8Fb in this thread. If you want to refer to someone else's post, then it's the last 3 characters that are unique to each post. For instance, you are ztq (the thread is @ETQh8Fb ). So unsure of who you are saying "well said" to. To the OP or one of the people responding?
Well said, and very true. Intel, like many companies today places very little value on their employees (you know the poor bastards that toiled long hours suffering a 35+% divorce rate to expedite products for mother Intel) There is zero loyalty to the employee, zero. So all you young engineers that think that people are just whinning, consider this so that when you ultimately get sawed off at the knees when you least expect it,.... well, at least you had some warning. That is not to say that one can't work within such an environment, just be sure to know where there is loyalty, and where there is none. Next time you consider going the extra mile for Intel at the possible expense of a dear relationship with family,.... think twice. I used to get a kick out of the insulting memos from HR at time when Intel was strip mining one benefit or another and somehow always casting this off as something that will benefit its valued employees. I used to go home after work and muse with my wife about "what do they think they are playing with kids, with their utter BS spin jobs,.... well its clear that for the most part they are nowadays, and you kids need to be very alert. HR is NOT your friend. In fact HR is nothing more that the eyes and ears of Intel legal, which is vigilant at all times looking for signs of employees that might "make trouble". (the last people in ANY company that you should trust is someone from HR)
Be good to, and be there for you family and don't let Intel, or any other greedy, heartless company get between you.
Looking at this logically (and not with emotion which a lot, if not all, of the laid off do), I don't agree that it's ageism at all. Unless the definition of ageism means it's ONLY about those being paid a high salary, and it's not. If, for example, people earned LESS the longer they held a job (so started at a really high pay that shrinks as time goes on and I'm not talking about inflation or the value of the dollar), and Intel held onto the younger people being paid MORE than the older people that have been around for decades that are earning less... ONLY THEN would I be able to believe it's about ageism because in this example it could ONLY be because of their age since they held onto the younger people at higher salaries).
Since things don't work like my example above (you're paid more when you're hired and it declines with every year) then to me it's not about ageism. It's about the fact they are getting rid of those with a high salary and replacing them with people that will accept much less salary. In real life it just so happens 'older folks' earn more than those just walking in the door so people tend to slant this as 'getting rid of the old' when it's really 'getting rid of some high paid folks (that just so happen to be old).
To me, Intel is trying to save money. It just so happens the younger people come in earning less and it takes a good long time to hit high levels (meaning they are now older when they've hit those high levels). At that time they risk getting hit.
And no, I'm not HR. I just apply logic to every aspect of my life,even it I end up being hurt in a decision I can still see the logic of it and don't let my emotions tell me otherwise.
Do I feel sorry for them? Yes, I'm not emotionless. I can just take emotion out of an equation/problem/issue to drive to the root cause of something.
Well said. And the way I see it, it's Intel that has changed. Intel has been making a change towards increased bureaucracy. When I started at the company if you pointed out an issue you were immediately pulled into whatever team formed to work a solution (and then relied on to find/fix other things - it was exhausting but rewarding). Now if you point out an issue you get a bureaucracy-laden "mind your own business". Intel is a dead company walking. It's only a matter of time before truly innovative companies (ARMH, D-Wave, etc) start eating Intel's lunch in the core PC/server markets.