Let someone else take it if the person offerred decline.
The remaining people are not motivated to work anyway.
What's so complicated about this simple logic?
9 replies (most recent on top)
Win-Win for everyone, Intel saved some bucks and who wants to go out, goes out. No one should be forced to wait for a VSP, People stay if they like and leave if not. That will be a revolutionary decision to let people choose VSP instead of the other way around. It'll be worth noting How many people choose to stay.
Since there'll likely be a regular culling of the herd going forward, these people who've reportedly been rendered "not motivated to work" will essentially be volunteering for future layoffs. So they should be patient - they'll get their turn to take one for their team.
In advance, thank you for your willingness to slack off in a way that'll make the others on your team look far more necessary than you are. Your sacrifice will not go unrewarded - unless, of course, they change the severance packages. In which case, you'll go less rewarded.
Intel should pay the youngish high performing employees to leave because after ACT they are not motivated to work anyway
I want this vsp, this ship is going down. Next year layoffs might not be so generous.
Intel seems to be (as legally as they can) defining "young-ish" as those who are at least under 50...
...and a "high performer" as those who've received an EE/O in the last four years, or a promotion, with at least an /3 rating. (One has learned that "successful" is a relative term.)
Define "youngish" and "high performer".
I'm a youngish high performer and I'm willing to leave for the money.
Well another argument is that the vsp is based on time at grade level and being onky successful from 2013-2016 (2012-2015 - actual year work occurred).
There are plenty of people with 4 years of successful. Include those. By Intel standards they aren't high performers either.
If you're Intel, why would you pay your young-ish high performers to leave? (They're already paying a good number of their old-ish high performers to leave.)
Wouldn't you end up with a workforce significantly comprised of people who've, within the company, triggered the algorithm for a "stagnant" career? People who haven't gotten an EE/O in the last few years? People who didn't think they could get another job? There's a "logic" to the plan you've suggested if the ONLY goal is to get rid of as many people as possible, but is that the only goal?
Presumably, there's a reason they didn't just offer a blanket VSP to everyone in the company - first come, first serve. After all, they just got successfully sued - along with a handful of their tech brethren - for discouraging the poaching of each other's talent. And now they're going to PAY their talent to walk out the door? That's NOT logical.