Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

I like Constructive Confrontation better. I confront intel by exposing the internal mess that the public, especially investors are not aware of. It has to be done anonymously, or else it would be destructive for me. It could potentially be Constructive for Intel shareholder if they investigate the allegations get to the bottom of the issue, get it solved, fast punish the real culprits. For sure some incompetent leaders would disagree with my approach. But being a good Intel employees they just have to disagree and commit. Btw I am also practising informed risk taking.

When they hire you, your position includes list of your responsibilities, but that is not a promise to keep you employed on that particular position: if needed requirements will be changed, you will get a chance usually to adopt or change job. There is only one agreement - they pay you, you do your job, as management puts it. Disagree - there is always an open door policy, escalate if feel like manager is not doing right thing for company and shareholders. That's it. Where did you get that wild expectation that company will do what you think it should, or that your job description and responsibilities won't change?

"There is no agreement promises to you besides your salary and compliance with the law."

Eeeek. Wrong! If you are hired to fix BMW engines, you maybe can fix FORD ones (within your working hours). But you ain't fixing Airbus 320 engines, for sure (if you do, your salary should/must triple).

Game Over. Please, try again, later. :-)

There is no agreement promises to you besides your salary and compliance with the law. They never promised you to ask for your permission to change internal rules or change management or company direction. If you can't raise reasonable concern publicly, do it through other channels. I see a lot of geniouses posting here, blaming managers but why they are complaining here, not making right decisions as a top managers? There is a good reason for it, I guess.

@HvlL6tp-1hsz, it is not about loyalty, it i about breaching of agreement between company and employee.

INTEL is good in getting there. They (all the time) change the initial agreements between employee and the company to suit their needs, Trust is a part of this process. I do not trust to someone, who changes the contract, bringing clueless, ignorant and arrogant people to lead, which are using/tailoring Code of Conduct to their advantages.

The other thing is the favorism of the management, who favor their mostly dead wood "pets".

If I say it openly in front of the management, I'll be fired. For this or that reason. You name it.

About one thing you are correct: if you experience it, you are the one to change it. By changing the system. Switching the companies, working for the new one ONLY on expensive contracts. :-)

For smooth execution and piece of mind trust is required both inside the team and between manager and employee, no questions there. If you don't trust people you are working with - change team or company. If that is your team - pick only people whom you trust to. When you tell people you don't trust them it means you can't work with them effectively. You have to credit people with trust to become part of a team. Your trust matters. Intel pays you and you do your job honestly.

What kind of Intel value brought you Discussing that topic with strangers anonymously here? Etics is complicated question, but gossiping here is definitely not BPX. Trust is created when you had promised something and it happened. Intel offered you money for job and i guess doing his part. You promised to work for Intel and comply with law and Intel rules. Intel provides good opportunities to raise your consern about all kind of issues, internet complains not right tool to address the issue. I guess you are not doing your part of contract by harming reputation of your company without adding a slime chance for succesfull issue resolution. And btw I also got VSP, but no hard feelings - I work to the best of my abilities and Intel pays me, I have trust in this agreement and both sides can cancel it t at any moment at will.

Intel has a lot smart people that may have different ideas of how to do a project. We can't all do things our own way all the time. Disagree and commit is important so the company can make forward progress. I expect the person setting the direction to own the failure and succeed of the direction, though.

@ida, what OP wanted here to stress is the nonsense of forcing agreement on "disagree and commit" policy on specific topic: "trust/no-trust". "Trust/no-trust" was the point of arguing.

Messy? Really? INTEL HR is messy. INTEL Legal is messy. INTEL management is messy. BK is insane. Murthy is an idiot. And you... You are the most clueless. ;-)

"Disagree and commit" means disagree and commit - you commit to the team's decision even if you disagree. I don't understand why it has to do with trust. You commit doesn't mean you trust. You don't trust does not mean you do not have to do your job. Sounds like messy arguments.

Appears that whole practice that occurred with you, your manager and HR was completely unethical.

There are a lot of things outlined in the code of conduct, but it appears it only applies when it become convenient to execute it. HR is untouchable, managers are only bottom dwellers

@HvlL6tp-nay, I am pure agnostic. But I believe in GOD, if you ask me to compare INTEL.values versus GOD values/belief/trust (no questions asked), for sure. :-))

I would start showing her Dawkins and Hitchens videos

You may find the answer yourself. Assume you are an atheist but your manager wants you to confirm that you believe in god. What would you do?