• Last Updated:
  • Apr 22nd, 2016 5:58 pm
Tags:
None
37 replies
Deal Fanatic
Sep 4, 2009
6575 posts
717 upvotes
I've heard from insider who said intel always had a policy of performance reviews geared towards the churn over of about 7% of their employees each year through performance reviews. Either you're average or on top or you're out. I guess they're laying off a bit more than this time.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2009
19682 posts
5769 upvotes
Toronto
Wow, one of nine employees will be cut.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 25, 2010
5061 posts
1454 upvotes
Abbottabad
Blackberry will have an influx of applications now.
Penalty Box
User avatar
Apr 25, 2013
7398 posts
1330 upvotes
Would Bob Noyce or Gordon Moore be proud of Intel's current situation ?

The mayor of Silicon Valley and founder of Intel, Robert Noyce with Gordon Moore of Moore's law

Image
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
27481 posts
3970 upvotes
Montreal
They are not dying. They are canning workers since it's teh best way to cut costs and raise share prices. If AMD can survive on life support for a decade, with terminal cancer and two heart attacks, Intel will be fine.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2015
2423 posts
1885 upvotes
Cochrane, AB
mr_raider wrote: They are not dying. They are canning workers since it's teh best way to cut costs and raise share prices. If AMD can survive on life support for a decade, with terminal cancer and two heart attacks, Intel will be fine.
You've convinced me that firing over 10% of your workforce at the same time is a sign of doing extremely well. Time to buy Blackberry stock!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 17, 2005
4933 posts
2332 upvotes
Markham
rageking wrote: I've heard from insider who said intel always had a policy of performance reviews geared towards the churn over of about 7% of their employees each year through performance reviews. Either you're average or on top or you're out. I guess they're laying off a bit more than this time.
There's a difference between churn which would mean they get replaced vs permanent cuts.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
29393 posts
9988 upvotes
LOL Intel is dying. Sure they are. And since that's the case I'm sure we're all going to be using abacuses and go back to handwriting letters in the next 10 years :lol:
Deal Fanatic
Dec 6, 2006
5238 posts
1511 upvotes
Toronto
evoviii wrote: There's a difference between churn which would mean they get replaced vs permanent cuts.
Well, no corporations will ever admit that they churn employees, since then it'll un-justify their layoff of the existing people.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 27, 2005
11938 posts
1728 upvotes
Richmond Hill
Another way to look at it is that Intel became too bloated from a corporate perspective, and a layoff is the easiest way to get rid of the poor performers. Contrary to how it's commonly depicted in the media, it's actually very difficult to fire somebody from a corporation. You don't simply say "You're fired. Pack your stuff and go home." Firing somebody is a long and arduous process, and it's usually impossible. Laying somebody off, on the other hand, requires no justification at all and you can target whoever you like. Yes, you'll need to pay the severance, but at least you can get rid of whoever you like.

The only problem is that, because the organization is bloated, nobody knows who the poor performers are. Or at least the people in charge of the hit list for the layoff don't know. This leads to good employees losing their jobs because whoever made the list didn't know who's good and who's bad. This happens more often than not, and is the reason why layoffs rarely lead to improvements in workforce efficiency. Yes, they become leaner on the balance sheet, but it's unhealthy for the long-term.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
10155 posts
2128 upvotes
Victoria
I sort of makes sense. Intel specializes in computer cpu's. The two major things going on are:

1) Many people are transitioning from computers/laptops to tablets/phones. Many of those portable devices don't use intel processors.

2) People that use computers/laptops are upgrading less often. CPU's got really powerful. Unless your gaming, computers can last a really long time now. People upgrading less often means lower sales.

AMD isn't up to much... so hopefully Intel keeps trucking.
Deal Addict
Feb 9, 2008
2363 posts
173 upvotes
zod wrote: Unless your gaming, computers can last a really long time now.
Even when gaming, with so many games written for consoles and ported to the PC, a fast CPU simply isn't needed to run them. My i7 is at least three years old, and barely ticking over in most games.

Microsoft have killed the demand for gaming CPUs by pushing gamers to consoles, and killed the demand for PC upgrades by pushing a tablet interface with embedded spyware on the desktop market. It's no wonder Intel is looking at other markets.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
27827 posts
13426 upvotes
zod wrote: 1) Many people are transitioning from computers/laptops to tablets/phones. Many of those portable devices don't use intel processors.

2) People that use computers/laptops are upgrading less often. CPU's got really powerful. Unless your gaming, computers can last a really long time now. People upgrading less often means lower sales.
The biggest problem about this argument is that consumer CPUs are a drop in a bucket compared to server CPUs both in volume and price.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 17, 2005
4933 posts
2332 upvotes
Markham
boyohboy wrote: Well, no corporations will ever admit that they churn employees, since then it'll un-justify their layoff of the existing people.
I think Goldman Sachs is known for cutting the bottom 5% or 10%. It's well known and accepted and published in the media.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 27, 2006
5932 posts
2151 upvotes
Cornwall PE
board123 wrote: Another way to look at it is that Intel became too bloated from a corporate perspective, and a layoff is the easiest way to get rid of the poor performers. Contrary to how it's commonly depicted in the media, it's actually very difficult to fire somebody from a corporation. You don't simply say "You're fired. Pack your stuff and go home." Firing somebody is a long and arduous process, and it's usually impossible. Laying somebody off, on the other hand, requires no justification at all and you can target whoever you like. Yes, you'll need to pay the severance, but at least you can get rid of whoever you like.

The only problem is that, because the organization is bloated, nobody knows who the poor performers are. Or at least the people in charge of the hit list for the layoff don't know. This leads to good employees losing their jobs because whoever made the list didn't know who's good and who's bad. This happens more often than not, and is the reason why layoffs rarely lead to improvements in workforce efficiency. Yes, they become leaner on the balance sheet, but it's unhealthy for the long-term.
Firing someone is not that difficult, write them up three times then say goodby. Had to do it a few times. They can litigate after wards but it would be a tough battle for them. I doubt these lay offs are performance related. If they are it's likely the poor performance of upper management.
Dun with posting deals.
My STORAGE SHED!
Linux User 412309
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 16, 2010
3250 posts
1796 upvotes
Burlington
I will be buying an i7 6700k shortly to help alleviate their problems. My heart is with you intel.
Penalty Box
User avatar
Apr 25, 2013
7398 posts
1330 upvotes
Dpack22 wrote: I will be buying an i7 6700k shortly to help alleviate their problems. My heart is with you intel.
You're just prolonging their agony and emptying your wallet at the same time, who would have thought US Robotics/3Com would have gone down the drain back in 1995 or RIM in 2010 ?
Microsoft is the other candidate in the same boat !

Top