Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Many of received a check in the mail in December from a lawsuit settlement against Intel. So, think what again?

This article below describes the grounds for a lawsuit vs Intel in perfect clarity. For a class action suit I would think a pattern of this behavior would be easy to find given the anecdotal stories just on this site

https://www.entrepreneur.com/answer/221882

You people complaining about HR... you do realize that HR does not exist to protect YOU, right? HR is there to help Intel's managers FIRE people without getting SUCCESSFULLY sued. And to help them hire people who are as CHEAP AS POSSIBLE but can do the job. Those are their entire mission. Nothing in there says anything about helping employees. They ONLY do so in the rare cases where your manager f'd up and you could potentially sue them and win. This is not that case.

If you sue, you'd BETTER win, and win BIG because word DOES get around. You won't get hired again by another big company if they know. I knew one person who sued their prior employer and Intel found out about it (unfortunately after Intel already hired the person) and that followed them their entire career (and for good reasons because the person was always trying to come up with grounds to sue). You don't want to be that person, trust me.

RCG backfills in low cost geos - that's Intel game all right. Performance my a**! What a low, dirty way to treat people: fire them by surprise then kick them while they're down by calling it "performance". EVIL.

Yes, and I think the reason the ISP business issues are being labelled "performance" is so that Intel can hire RCGs for the same position they just fired for with legal protection. If the firing action was called business issues then there would be no need or legal justification to hire back a younger, cheaper worker for the same position. But if they call it "performance" then they can hire as many cheap replacements as they want!

Who cares about the employees we just fired and that we f---ed them on the way out as well - we need to lower our labor costs (Intel mgmt)

Instead of listening to Intel HR (OP and responding many times on this thread). I'd suggest you buy an HR Legal book and get educated on the topic. Something like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Will-Terminating-Employees-Legally/dp/1880024039/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8)

Again.. a lay off is one thing, but going public to blame the existing folks of being a performance issue is just Intel being a whiney bitch. Could Intel actually be thinking that the world thinks they are the victim of these terrible employees they are letting go? Why did they proclaim them as performance layoffs? They were mostly all successful rated employees that just happened to get a lower stock than others. There are several reasons why that can happen, but when you get a successful, you typically are not a performance issue. It is weird, and very actionable. In a world where employers such as Intel are given special treatments, tax shelters and such, they should not be discouraging the hiring of folks who were laid off because of business decisions by inferring they were laid off because of performance issues.

HR legal at Intel actually told me in July of 2015 we are not investing case without you getting a lawyer so not sure why this person thinks this.. you can fight this with a lawyer. Its a free country the last time I checked.

This is an Intel legal "troll". Intended to discourage you from suing the company. Intel's concern is that it's legal dept. will be overrun with tens of thousands of lawsuits. Can you imagine the paperwork of fighting a variety of lawsuits ranging from employment to health issues allegedly caused by Intel. Intel would have to hire thousands of attorneys just to keep up and avoid summary judgements.

HR at Intel is worthless. Intel would be a much better place is they fired most if not all of the HR staff.

Nothing but a bunch of worthless HR tools driving the company into the ground.

Thanks for the advice HR. Now FO

I am not from Intel. But I will say this. I work for another company and have been recruiting others for open reqs at my company.

And let me.offer some advice. Getting in a lawsuit is a messy situation, so you want to make sure you have a decent case.

Although the law says that you can't be retaliated against, the tech community can be small, such that getting involved in a friovlous lawsuit may very well put you in a situation that leads to you not getting interviews or offers, simply because people think your are a pain in the ass

So if you plan on suing, make sure you use some good judgement. Domt go off telling your peers and friends you are suing, in as much the moment a company is involved in a lawsuit, the company tells employees not to go off and talk about the lawsuit. Comoabies dont eant to talk about a pendong lawsuit because they dont want to be perceived as spending ibformation as a form of retaliatio. And that is also why they gag their employees to not talk about lawsuits. But if you go off and run your stupid mouth off, you open yourself up to be discriminated by your peers at the next company.

It doesn't matter how right you think you are or how wrongfully terminated you think you were treated. Your next employer won't care. The only thing your next employer will care about is if this employee might be trouble. So if you plan on using shut the fck up and keep it to yourself. And definitely don't be stupid.and post sh-- on the board, becuase you never know if it will be supeonaed.

Oh, and a few other things. You better have had a squeaky clean record at your employer. If just just remotely abused your internet privileges, for example, by spending a lot of time on company computers for non work related things, you can bet that is going come up as part of your lawsuit. Server logs, website trackers ,email caches.

That's why you really want to ask yourself is it worth your time or should you just move on. If you have no job no future and an older employee that is much harder to get employed elsewhere, yes you probably have nothing to lose. If you are young and generally employable elsewhere, you might not want to shoot yourself in the foot.

Been there , done that.

Go back to HR OP. By the way FUAH

@qww - Go away Intel Legal person. Time to bring in the unions!!!

Intel's policy seems contradictory. First they said the layoffs would be worldwide. Here layoffs are attributed to underperformance. But if underperformance is the criteria you would expect it to be more or less evenly distributed worldwide. Yet, some places such as Israel haven't had any layoffs as far as I can tell. That does make it seem like American, mostly white, older and male, workers are being targeted. They might not be in a protected group yet, but they might need to be in one.

It's never made sense to tell American workers to "compete" on wages but still expect them to pay taxes and mortgages and public schools, environmental protections, etc. It's never made sense.

Firing is one thing but what about wrongly labeling the employee as lower performer and adding them to 'do not hire' list in the same bucket as criminals?

People keep saying they're going to sue - and they wrongly assume that any naysayer is from HR, trolling the site, trying to protect Intel.

I'm not from HR - and I'm sincerely asking: What are your legal grounds for a lawsuit?

"At Will Employment" means "absent express agreement to the contrary, either employer or employee may terminate their relationship at any time...for OR WITHOUT CAUSE." (Black's Law Dictionary)

Does your employment contract with Intel explicitly (in writing) state that you would ONLY be fired for just/good cause? Does it state any other criteria that would impede the company's right to simply fire you for their own purposes? Does it explicitly state a process they'd have to follow to fire you that they failed to follow?

Are you a protected class? (Things like age, race, religion, disability, etc.) And, in that case, can you PROVE that the firing was, very specifically, FOR that protected-class reason? Not just that a disproportionate number of that class were caught in the layoff net. (See "Gross vs. FBL.") There are any number of legitimate motives a business might have for their layoff criteria.

Layoffs are legal. Very few considerations are adequate to protect the employee. And it's very difficult to prove employment discrimination to the degree necessary to win a lawsuit - and the burden of proof is generally on the fired employee.

So, far starters - before you start paying for a very expensive attorney - you should do a little research to figure out whether or not you possibly have an actionable cause for relief in the at-will employment context. What do you have, in writing, that would inhibit Intel's right to fire you?

You guys ever try to apply for a job that requires a background check? Particularly when your either dealing with financials or defense? What do you think comes up in your background screening?

"will go on my record" - what record? Thought this was a free country

You have nothing to loose. Already banned from Intel and who gives a crap if you go to trial and come out with a ton of money. You wont be looking for work. JUST DO IT!!!!

35-40% for adults and 25% for minor is typical. 50% is excessive.

What is a reasonable percentage for contingency cases? I have lawyers ready to take my case from 35% to 50% (if it goes all the way to trial which is highly unlikely). I was told that litigation against employer will go on my record only if the case goes all the way to trial.

I have the opposite opinion of the OP. If it's class action there should ONLY be 1 public person and many private. But the biggest disagreement is this: it's really not about win/lose in court. It's about how strong of a case you have that will determine the settlement amount. Very few cases will actually go to court. If it's a weak case the lawyer gets paid and you get nothing, if it's a strong case well then it's upgraded retirement! If your lawyer takes the case on contingency fee then the only risk will be no payout and your time invested in the case.

Engineers and geeks are the last to sue. We all know that. They are pussies when it come to real social environments, but talk like a warrior behind that keyboard. Yeah, ID say employers don't need to worry about a bunch of soft spoken geeks.

Someone please post law firms that an take-on wrongful termination/ libel cases in the Portland area.

F--- HR

OP is a moron

Bug off OP

Nice try Intel HR

Stick your head up you assand see if it fits

No matter you win or lose the lawsuit, who benefits the most with a big check? Not you or Intel, think about it again what you want to get from it.

I say, if you have a solid case, go for the MAX! and retire.

Thank you, INTEL HR Legal, to let us know. Now, buzz off/get lost, and do not sh@t here anymore, OK?

As far as Intel you can't go back anyway. That is what's in the agreement. You agree never to work there so it does not apply. You are already black listed if you signed off on the agreement.