It would be June 13, 2016 - tha's what I heard.
Some hints from FLM that S with SSL5/4 in 2015 (based on Y2014 review) will be chopped out with ISP.
This portion of the distribution were not chopped by SSL4/5 in 2016 (based on Y2015 review).
For example, S and SSL5/4 last yr and S and SSL3 this year were saved by last round of ISP.
In contrast, S and SSL3 last year but S and SSL4 were chopped by round# 1 ISP.
Is this to be applied across the company or just some groups. This will be a large number. For this year there were 3.5k who got sl4/5
Does anyone know if this is for all groups.
@1kpm Do you actually believe what Intel says in ACT? They will change the rules anytime.
I doubt that this is true. Business groups are given their targets and they will meet that number as they choose, attrition, redeployment etc. this info is in the act page.
BTW BK invented this SSL-based layoff, it was not Murthy. He just joined and doing what he needs to do to survive in new Intel culture. He has prior experience though,
@udy if "they have to find 12000 with minimal effects to the business" then they've failed. Miserably.
I wouldn't have any major issue with ACT and last year's layoffs if everything was above table. But using SSL was new (and BK boldfaced lied to us when he said it wasn't new in the BUM last year). Doing that, and making it retroactive to prior years that you can no longer challenge, is really crappy. Last year they should have reinstated "BE" and defined that as S + SSL4/5. There you go, obvious performance message. But they didn't do so to prevent hurting peoples' feelings, and it sounds like they're taking the next step this year by removing O and EE so that nobody can feel bad that others are higher performers than them. Yay political correctness.
" They were just people who were doing critical tasks but could not move up in the ladder because of lack of opportunities"
That's what happens when a company has no growth. You need growth to sustain promotions otherwise the entire company becomes too heavy. Sound familiar?
Intel needs to solve its growth problem.
RE: @HNMB2o2-1eio lat year criteria was two SSL4/5 for past 3 years reviews, so folks with one SSL4/5 in y14 review (done at 2015) were not impacted in 2015 June ISPs.
In 2016 the criteria was one ssl4/5 this year, then you are out.
Weren't people were given ISP based on SL in 2014 review last year in a much less publicized head count reduction? Are there people still working at Intel who got SL4/SL5 in 2014 review?
Is this criteria being applied across Intel? I am thinking groups that need to have further headcount reductions might be the ones using this formula. Also, is this the ISP where you get to come back or the ISP where they walk you out on the spot like a criminal for the walk of shame?
confirmed. this happened in our group last week...
And the Purge continues.
my understanding was that groups were given a percent the need to cut and that would be used to get he numbers down. If you had a sl4 last year and improved it to an SL 3 this year it is hard to imagine the can cut you for performance since your current performance has improved.
This blind stock level is just so stupid.
They get rid of just a pittance of people and with them so critical older / experience but that is a good / clever way to purge the old and bring in the young with lover pay and don't know jack $hit.
Now the do VSP and lose some more value.
Then do the big structure and org cuts of the dead bloated divisions. Why would they have done that at the beginning to get to 12K?
If this turns out to be true I must be in the list. K had SSL5 in 2015 based on full y14 focal as well as ssl5 based on y13's one month-based focal. This year I got ssl3 though with all successful ratings.
I heard the same. May be few 1st level managers who has good rapport with their direct managers already know lot more than this, they just did not want to spread this. I think it came Dow from human resource to area managers for such cuts.
Can anyone confirm this information?
Got this information from First Level Manager (FLM)? I think it should be HR rather than FLM. I don't think FLM can have this information so early.
@HNMB2o2-ltd Yes, sounds like an awesome game (SSL 1-5 game) of elimination with no pre-disclosed rules. RULES ARE CREATED BRAND NEW AS THE GAME PROGRESSES. I am sure I've learnt a lot at Intel..
Using level 4/5 stock will be an interesting HR business case study and BK and Richard will end up looking like idiots.
Impacted employees bu project cancellations and site closures might be considered minimal effects to the business (since their project and sites were dimmed that way). But people selected for ISP and VPS do not qualify a minimal effect for business. They were just people who were doing critical tasks but could not move up in the ladder because of lack of opportunities (colocations) or unwillingness to change careers to whatever is available onsite.
If MCM wanted 12000 gone without effects to business they should have let VPs and directors choose. But of course, not all 120000 would have been highly paid employees
Intel is in a lot of trouble. These cuts have nothing to do with performance our restructuring. They just have to find 12000 with minimal effects to the business. So they are using focal which as we know is biased in it's results.