It is not just the non diverse candidates are at disadvantage. Diverse candidates are set up for failure by hiring them at a grade above of what they are capable of to meet the numbers at higher grades and then fired a year layer for not being able to meet the bar. Recruiter got the credit for bringing in diverse candidates, BK gets to brag we hired X number of diverse candidates in 2015, and who cares what happens a year later!!!! Wasting company resources...
18 replies (most recent on top)
@aas Are you seriously defending a worthless piece of paper still? I'll put my masters degree in engineering against your professional engineer's paper any day. You sound like a millennial defending his participation trophy as some great accomplishment.
"you obviously never have been inside an Intel site. Most are indian/chinese and it's been that way for a decade or so."
Exactly... Chandler main campus is easily 75% Asian. Just go for coffee @ 9am and you'll think you're in Singapore.
@ bnk - Spot on, spot on..... great post.
If there are two candidates with the same (actual) qualifications, who will apparently be able to do the same quality of work, sure, hire the "underrepresented minority." Indulge in that prejudice based on race and gender. High five yourself.
If, on the other hand, there's one more-qualified candidate and one less-qualified candidate...why is there even a question about the right thing to do? Unless other companies are going to start buying computer chips based on the diversity of Intel's workforce. Until then, the most logical approach is to hire the people who are most likely to do the best job, no matter WHAT color or gender they are.
Why would the shareholders want to see anything less productive? The stock price isn't going to go up based on artificial diversity hiring. Logically, it'll ultimately go down, due to the less practical employment goals. It's a computer chip company, not a charmingly musical children's ride at Disneyland.
@HdkF7uf-zhg It is true that few people in Intel's type of engineering care about a Professional Engineer's license. However, I will bet that you couldn't get one. A "few years of employment" do not get you a PE license. There is a very comprehensive exam that covers pretty much everything you learned in engineering college and the overwhelming majority of people flunk it. You would be one of those flunkees. But don't worry; you're in the majority, flunkee!
Diversity is at the most shallow end of political correctness. And it is no surprise that it meets up with those that are most shallow that fall into this trap. @HdkF7uf-wib has it right - we are witnessing the slow death of enterprise through grievance and the ridiculous notion of representation.
Anyone with common sense can see that there is nothing but fluffy platitudes as the end game, none of which can be measured EXCEPT by skin color. I'd like to see our Diversity Queen present the metrics (there are none) of how diversity has powered the organization forward, knocking off the competition and meeting the disrupters head-on and smashing them. Intel is like the team on the field that gets a participation trophy because we have "diversity" and that makes us just and good.
But never good enough to win.
@nhu Please tell me, what color is the sky in your made up world?
Also, really? Professional Engineer's license? Something nobody cares about and basically anybody can get after a few years of employment is meaningless. If you can't immediately see that then I pity you.
"Diversity" is not discrimination for 3 reasons. 1. Remember affirmative action? Diversity is just the new PC govt action to allow inclusiveness at the expense of others already working. I for one believe in true diversity, but we all know there is nothing true about government corporatism. 2. The Intel layoffs were a legal prejudice as they did not layoff based on race, sex, or any other factor protected under the employment code. 3. Ethnic populations are underrepresented, multinationals have to play the game if they want the permissions and breaks of various governments. This is a business not a pity party.
Do you have a Professional Engineers license? I am betting you do not. That means you did not even attempt to reach the top of your field, so you have no one to blame but yourself if you were laid off.
HdkF7uf-czh, who told you minority is safe? Everyone knows that only Indian is safe!
Doug Davis gone, that guy was a powerhouse.gun
Dude, I was a minority and got layoff. Stop the bs, diversity is just trying to break those only male "white/Asian from certain school" groups. I'm seen groups don't even bother to look around other schools, resumes, etc.
There is no problem by having more Chinese in Intel as they are cheap labour who likes to work , work and work even though they are underpaid.
But Indian on the other hand is totally different, they only want jobs that require no hands on , but talk only. That is why you see majority of call centres are based in India.
look here: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ it may help you understand why there are many indian/chinese
@btc: you obviously never have been inside an Intel site. Most are indian/chinese and it's been that way for a decade or so.
Who knows these layoff are meant to improve diversity number ... haha
No new hiring and fire males and you achieve your goals on paper any maybe get incentives from government.
Strange, but i have seen 5 people been given ISP are all males.. could be a coincidence. But...
You guys are idiots. Black people, Chinese, women etc have only recently had the same economic freedom as white males. Look around the company, look around any tech place and its mostly white males. Adding a few percent diversity hires is not changing anything. There a tonne of low performing non minorities at Intel. I am speechless by the ignorance on this page wow
It's obvious for example that Doug Davis and Kirk Skaugen had to leave the company while chief of mobile division Aicha Evans was "convinced to stay" despite disaster her division made which ended up with SoFIA and Atom being abandoned and Intel lose ground in the mobile race.
On the one side management is closing numerous sites and letting 12k people go in order to save money while on the other side they are throwing 300+ m$ into "diversification". You don't do that when company is struggling - it's just pretend that everything is OK while company got totally smashed in mobile race and is losing bread&butter business in likes of PC sales...
Intel is not on the right path and when you start to put politics before performance then future is not very bright. Changes in IT industry are happening very fast so I wouldn't be surprised if Intel in just few years become completely irrelevant (like they were saying at ISMC few years back).
True