Skip to main content

Intel Plans to Lay Off 129 Employees

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Intel's handing out pink slips. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on February 13 that, according to filings with the California Employment Development Department, the company plans to lay off 129 employees from its Santa Clara headquarters.

The layoffs appear to be related to Intel's realignment of its Data Center Group, which is now the Data Platforms Group, in January. That realignment was expected to lead to "at least several hundred" layoffs in several of the company's locations.

Intel told the Chronicle that its "business units are focusing their resources on areas where we have the greatest opportunity for growth and, as part of that, some are planning to eliminate roles associated with projects that are no longer priorities."

The company also reiterated that the layoffs affect less than 1% of its global workforce. It's also hiring for another 1,300 positions, although it's not clear if the  people mentioned in these filings were given the opportunity to apply for those jobs.

Intel reportedly said in the filings that it will offer affected employees severance pay based on how long they worked for the company; it also plans to give them enough money to pay for their health insurance premiums for an undisclosed length of time.

  • bit_user
    It's also hiring for another 1,300 positions, although it's not clear if the people mentioned in these filings were given the opportunity to apply for those jobs.
    Probably not. Most of those being let go are probably very senior, and in a very expensive market. Intel is probably looking to staff most of those positions with younger employees, in cheaper locales.
    Reply
  • JoBalz
    bit_user said:
    Probably not. Most of those being let go are probably very senior, and in a very expensive market. Intel is probably looking to staff most of those positions with younger employees, in cheaper locales.

    Or younger employees that are not yet able to command large salaries. I worked at one company where it was very obvious what they were doing based on the people that were being given pink slips, often ones who'd been with the company for years. So much for any loyalty to your employees.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    JoBalz said:
    Or younger employees that are not yet able to command large salaries. I worked at one company where it was very obvious what they were doing based on the people that were being given pink slips, often ones who'd been with the company for years.
    While Google is famous for its hiring practices, you might say that Intel is famous for its firing practices.

    For a while they would regularly cull the bottom 10% of employees. That might sound wise, but if everyone is terrified of being in that bottom 10%, you get a lot of back-stabbing and one-upsmanship, rather than the kind of teamwork that research has shown to produce the best results.

    They also did things like cutting everyone who didn't get a promotion in the past 3 years (as you get more senior, promotions naturally tend to take longer, so this almost seems designed to cull more senior employees, other than super stars).

    They frequently shutter offices and divisions, which probably creates a workforce that's continually looking around for their next opportunity, instead of focusing only on success of their current endeavor.

    So, is it any wonder that they are now having issues staying at the cutting edge of markets and production stages (such as fabrication), where they have traditionally dominated?

    JoBalz said:
    So much for any loyalty to your employees.
    Wall St. doesn't care about that. The average tenure of a CEO is just a few years. So, for them, it's obviously going to be tempting to take a short-term gain of making cuts, when they might not even be around to suffer most of the cumulative fallout.
    Reply
  • miroslavhm
    bit_user said:
    While Google is famous for its hiring practices, you might say that Intel is famous for its firing practices.

    For a while they would regularly cull the bottom 10% of employees. That might sound wise, but if everyone is terrified of being in that bottom 10%, you get a lot of back-stabbing and one-upsmanship, rather than the kind of teamwork that research has shown to produce the best results.

    They also did things like cutting everyone who didn't get a promotion in the past 3 years (as you get more senior, promotions naturally tend to take longer, so this almost seems designed to cull more senior employees, other than super stars).

    They frequently shutter offices and divisions, which probably creates a workforce that's continually looking around for their next opportunity, instead of focusing only on success of their current endeavor.

    So, is it any wonder that they are now having issues staying at the cutting edge of markets and production stages (such as fabrication), where they have traditionally dominated?


    Wall St. doesn't care about that. The average tenure of a CEO is just a few years. So, for them, it's obviously going to be tempting to take a short-term gain of making cuts, when they might not even be around to suffer most of the cumulative fallout.

    So, therein lies the truth why Boeing airplanes tend to fall, or GE aircraft engines tend to fall apart recently - usually the most complex products experience failures first. It's a systematic failure of the modern capitalism, and it may turn into a major social change - first, Chinese expansionists communism seems will prevail over the world; second, leftist political forces, aka Venezuela and Latin America, will inevitably prevail in the US. It's a matter of time.

    And exactly corporate practices as Intel's, or Boeing's, or GE's etc. etc. are the reason for that. Ironical :)
    Reply
  • executivecab
    miroslavhm said:
    So, therein lies the truth why Boeing airplanes tend to fall, or GE aircraft engines tend to fall apart recently - usually the most complex products experience failures first.

    Got any data to back that up? This is a problem with short-sighted management that doesn't realize they make MORE money from solid products - not a problem with captialism as a system. It's a problem of leadership that is maximizing the wrong things (low employment costs vs quality product sales).

    miroslavhm said:
    It's a systematic failure of the modern capitalism, and it may turn into a major social change - first, Chinese expansionists communism seems will prevail over the world;
    Um, you do know that Chinese expansionism IS driven by 'modern capitalism' - in it's ugliest form. If they get their way, you'd better expect to be locked into socialist style massive highrises under inhumane conditions making iPhones. So, you're saying they're about to prevail?

    miroslavhm said:
    second, leftist political forces, aka Venezuela and Latin America, will inevitably prevail in the US. It's a matter of time.

    How are fringe leftist political forces in economically insignificant countries (forces that have been ineffectually active since the 1950's by the way) going to change any of the big economies in China, EU, US, etc?

    miroslavhm said:
    And exactly corporate practices as Intel's, or Boeing's, or GE's etc. etc. are the reason for that. Ironical :)

    And you make my point for me. It's corporate practices of their LEADERSHIP optimizing for the wrong outcomes that is the failure - not 'capitalism' as an economic system.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    miroslavhm said:
    So, therein lies the truth why Boeing airplanes tend to fall, or GE aircraft engines tend to fall apart recently - usually the most complex products experience failures first.
    It's no mystery why this happened. The FAA basically got turned into a rubber stamp. If we went back to having competent regulators with the resources they need, then it might just save our aviation industry.

    miroslavhm said:
    It's a systematic failure of the modern capitalism, and it may turn into a major social change - first, Chinese expansionists communism seems will prevail over the world; second, leftist political forces, aka Venezuela and Latin America, will inevitably prevail in the US. It's a matter of time.

    And exactly corporate practices as Intel's, or Boeing's, or GE's etc. etc. are the reason for that. Ironical :)
    It seems to me that you're awfully quick to jump on the failures of modern capitalism, while ignoring its multitude of successes and accomplishments.

    I think there's a lot that works well about modern capitalism, but it definitely needs a tune up. You could do quite a lot by addressing corporate governance rules to better align the interests of senior management with the interests of the share holders. Then, tweak the tax code to discourage short-term investing and private ownership of large companies. This would lead to companies that are truly run with the long-term interests of their customers and workers at heart.

    The big question is why none of this has been done. And here's where we need the big-picture explanation. I think it boils down to the fact that people don't believe it can be any different (I guess they forget or like to ignore when it was?). Absent that, money can drive political agendas towards twisting the system to favor the wealthy and powerful, instead of the worker, the consumer, the individual investor, and the citizen.

    If you could wash away cynicism, revive accountability, and get money out of politics, then we'd see a capitalism that truly works for the people. If not, perhaps there are a few more populist leaders and political upheavals in our near future.
    Reply