Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

" ALL corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders, first and foremost. Then customers. And then employees. "

Hmm. Let us see - how is spending 8 Billion dollars on a company with 1B revenue and some 400 million in profits and then selling it for scarp after 6 years is a "responsibility" to shareholders? How is junking a functioning company's products a "responsibility" to its "customers"? In the same vein, how is spending $15B on a company with $1.8B in revenue and $500M in profit being "responsible" to the shareholders, especially when you can not demonstrate proportional return after acquisition? At this profit rate, it would take some 30 years to pay for 15B price tag (assuming business stays the same). Beyond feel good platitudes BK has not explained how Altera is supposed to justify its steep price tag. Could he not have done the same by partnering with, instead of buying up Altera?

It sure is called capitalism. One wonders who are most beneficiaries of this system. Declining companies screw employees first. When employees leave, products and in turn customers suffer. Then comes the fall of the share holders. May be this is what BK meant by his "virtuous cycle" - that is only path to growth is repeated downsizing.

Who gets the best of all of this? The execs. Heads, I grew the company. Tails, I downsized the company. In either case, I get my $M bonus and raise.

As someone who has been a manager during focal: You are "encouraged" to meet certain distributions. The bigger group/organization generally needs 3-5% IR, ~5% ssl5, ~5-10% ssl4. (Note that ssl4 can only be given to grade level 7 and above.)

So, if you need to meet your distribution, it is common practice to give employees that have been in your group <6 months a lower stock grant.

Does anyone know of any 'guideline' or rule managers go by while assigning rating (Successful/IR/... & SL4/5, etc.) to someone who's been at Intel less than 6 months? Is it a rule that no such employee can get higher than SL4 even if they have delivered in that short duration?

Greed drives the narcistic sociopaths that drive for the top, they look at short term plans to fatten their compensation because they know they're only on top for a very short time.

Get over yourself man. ALL corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders, first and foremost. Then customers. And then employees. Its called Capitalism. Don't like it, too bad because Bernie the Commie ain't gonna be President.

Agreed.

And it's why I am out of this place.

Some text got deleted. Here is the full version -

New R&R System

With what the present CEO had done, he changed the norm for IR. With IR, one has 3 monthly of CAP time to get back on track without being fired. Now, if you get an SL4 or SL5, you become a target until the next focal time. If you can not turn that SL4/5 into an SL3 or higher, you will be fired. The subtext a "successful with SL4/5" should carry is - "marked for firing".

The message BK is conveying here is - "when I decide to bottom scrape to make up for my expensive acquisitions like McAfee and Altera that I have no clue of how to monetize and will eventually sell it for scrap (as we did with every other Intel acquisition in the past), I can change the bar anyway I want to meet my short term revenue needs". This is after he announced earlier this year that the head count will stay flat in 2016. Like Marissa Meyer, he has come up with some crafty verbiage (remember "Remixing"?) like anyone his position to hide from plainsight the epic failure of the executive leadership to stay relevant in the computing market.

If history is any clue, Intel is transforming into one of those old guard companies like P&G, J&J, GE and the rest of the old pack. The only way the execs can retain their fat pay checks is not through vision, strategy, innovation and market expansion, but by making short term adjustments through acquisitions, mergers and layoffs.