Can they actually give SL4/5 just because you took sabbatical or medical leave ?
Isn't that illegal? If so, why HR is not strictly advising these incompetent clown managers before every focal process ?
10 replies (most recent on top)
We are no longer a country where the rule of law is respected.
The challenge for a manager is this: suppose someone on the team took sabbatical for 2 months while the rest of the team didn't and everyone's average contribution per month is the same, then who do you pick to give SL4? In reality, the person taking the sabbatical will usually have lower average contribution because he/she will take a bit of time to ramp back up and also missed out on 2 months to enhance his/her skillset. Even if a manager strictly adhere's to HR guideline, people taking leaves and sabbatical will be dinged, unfortunately. There's also the challenge of accurately comparing people's contribution when everyone's doing something different. A manager can probably only look at how many projects someone completed and the less time off sometime takes, the more projects that person can contribute to.
I think the only way to combat this problem is to force everyone to take sabbatical and bonding leave if they qualify for them. By giving men the option to take bonding leave, it evens the playing field for women a bit. If everyone takes these leaves, then ratings and compensation should work out in the long run. The ISP criteria is crewing up the system, though. If everyone is equally capable, then everyone will have a chance to get SL4 as everyone takes sabbatical and bonding leave. Since ISP only look at the latest year's contribution, eventually everyone will be laid off unless you never have kids or forfeit your sabbatical.
There is a huge disconnect between the senior leadership and the first level managers when it comes to some of these policies and their implementation.
I think HR probably doesn't know (and doesn't want to know) that people are giving SSL 4 because of missed time.
Have you ever read the comments on the diversity threads on circuit? It goes like this:
Employee: "My manager said we can only hire a minority candidate. How is that not discrimination?"
HR (Even richard taylor directly, which is hilarious): "That is not the policy. You must be misunderstanding." (then the policy is stated)
If HR had any interest in making sure that wasn't happening, they would read all ~20 of those reported instances and go find out what's really happening. They don't want to know.
Just my opinion...
@H4dgmSL-ijg I have been reading quite a few posts where people mentioned that those who took bonding leave got SL4, thereby setting them up for layoff. Here is another @H4fx2ZX. This looks discriminatory. It's possible that Intel's HR minions may have screwed up and overlooked a potential class-action lawsuit situation here.
See the focal guidelines at (Intel internal web page for blue badge only):
https://employeecontent.intel.com/content/hr/legalandhr/focal/Focal_Guidelines.html#sabbatical
Just a couple of highlights:
The sabbatical is an employee benefit, which should not negatively impact the employee. Managers should follow the same process for Focal as with all other employees:
Don't count the employee's time away for sabbatical against them when determining Focal ratings or stock share levels. As an example, if the employee worked only 10 or 11 months of the review period, evaluate the employee relative to expectations for those 10 or 11 months, not against what peers accomplished in a full 12 month period.
Minority employees got a big survey from HR about 3 weeks ago with questions about how they could improve retention. How classless does that seem now, give the current state of things?
You can retain me by:
1- Not firing me.
2- Not shutting down my site.
3- Not making my fellow employees hate me.
4- Not discriminating against people taking care of their families by using benefits you brag about offering to look good in supporting diversity.
UGH
Don't forget sabbatical @gwa.
I think this should be grounds for class action. The law and the commitment from Intel is to support during MLOA and bonding leave. If we can prove a direct correlation between the leaves and the performance ratings and layoffs, it would prove that intel did not honor that contract.
Based on info on this site alone, there is data to prove it.
yes, I got sl4. I took bonding leave last year. My mgr told me straightforward.
HR helps look out for managers. Plus all the manager needs to say is that there was a problem and how could HR know otherwise?