Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Live within you means, you dumb old fools.

Plenty of children get educated with school loans, what's so special about your children needing their parents to pay.

You did not have to buy a big home you could not own by age 50. Shameful. What have you been doing all your life. You oldies had the golden days.

regarding - folks who are not financially able to retire will always feel pushed out. Even when pushed out with the ERP.

Maybe this is a lesson in saving more because "you never know what will happen". Look on the bright side! If you saved more for 'just in case I get screwed', and don't get screwed,,,, you STILL have a pretty good nest egg built up and can retire before your full retirement age. What's to lose?

There are some excellent thoughts above.

I like the diversity angle. Older employees are, I believe, a protected class, and the age-bias apparent in Intel's own data reveals endemic disregard and disdain.

This layoff benefits only shareholders. Customers can expect poorer products. And employees get it in the butt.

I believe Intel's problems have less to do with "lazy employees" than they do with repeatedly poor decisions on the part of mgt. And an increasingly political culture. OHS already indicated trust was low.

The comment about transitioning employees to new skills is an interesting one. It will become more relevant as AI starts taking over more jobs more quickly. What to do with a displaced truck driver? Or fab tech? Or CEO? Not all of us can go work at Facebook.

If BK had considered "senior employees" as part of diversity and gave them the same preferred care and consideration with a better transition, they'd be better off. I do not disagree with earlier posts stating that ERP was generous, that info on retirement incentives has always been there. The issue is that until they say there is a mandatory retirement age (probably illegal), folks who are not financially able to retire will always feel pushed out. Even when pushed out with the ERP.

It is of course the responsibility of every employee to plan his career, his life and ultimately his retirement. I have no general criticism of Intel's retirement benefits; they're reasonable, albeit less than they used to be. But Intel just spent 1.2 billion to essentially "retire" some folks, throwing the entire place into chaos, when what they should do is have a better system for managing the lifecycle of their employees.

BK spends more time thinking and talking about hiring diversity and bathrooms, rather than understanding how to transition his workers. Other industries do it effectively. It's a fact of life in every work environment and it doesn't always lead to being fired or told if you don't take the package the next round will be ISPs.

And it doesn't just impact the 60 year old. Every 40 year old I know at Intel now fully well knows that he/she will never retire from Intel. Whether BK or the Board recognizes this, there is a huge efficiency cost to letting employees know that they are unlikely to ever make retirement age.

Regarding: "Create normal and standardized incentives for older workers to retire. Yes, there is a Rule of 75, but the benefits of hitting Rule of 75 are minor. Whether those incentives are monetary, benefits or some combination, let employees know in advance that at a certain age they can gracefully retire with a few extra perks and without the shame of being kicked out."

They already do. There's more than the Rule of 75 you know.... there's also the Rule of 55 (which I retired under since there was NO WAY I was sticking around a few more years for the Rule of 75 to kick in). You can also retire at age 60 (not sure they call it a "rule". Sounds odd that you didn't get offered ERP if you're 63 as you said. I think you'd fall into the 'rule' of 60 (age 60 with years of service not mattering).

Also, all you say " let employees know in advance that at a certain age they can gracefully retire with a few extra perks" is also info available to every single employee. Simply search Circuit for retirement. The thing I see is... people don't seem to care until they are staring a VSP/ERP in the face. THEN they start asking questions which is way too late in my opinion.

Heck, I searched for 'retirement' shortly after I was hired. I wanted to know what was coming to me. lol I have found over the years that not everyone realizes they get SERMA (Hello!!! Figure that sh*t out! Ain't no one gonna hold your hand and force you to read it!). I was also surprised at all the people that had NO CLUE there were rules other than the Rule of 75 (and I talked to a LOT over the years). I'm like... don't you go see what you're entitled to??? Don't you care? I sure did.

Anyway, the info is out there, few read it or take advantage of it. Case and point... I had a friend retire from Intel and then she heard me talking about SERMA. She was like... what's that? Uhm, excuse me? You don't freaking KNOW?!?!?! It's only $1500 per every year of service they give you to pay for medical. You need to freaking figure that sh*t out!!!! Had I not brought it up (in regards to MY planning for retirement, she would have never known about it).

It's just STUPID in my opinion that people don't seem to care enough to educate themselves, then scream bloody murder that they're being cheated, etc.

I am also 63, and still at Intel (damn, no ISP, VSP, or ERP). I learned about 25 years ago not to depend on your employer for your career development or to look out for you in the long term in any meaningful way. Everyone should already have a retirement plan and a back-up plan for a lay-off, and at age 63, getting the axe at a job should not be a big deal, if you have prepared for it. If Intel wants new blood, they should just up the ante in the ERP. Expecting Intel to have a management philosophy to "maximize the older workers contributions" is silly wistful thinking. You, yourself, as an older worker should be maximizing you own damn contribution if you want to keep working.

Since several people asked how I survived. 9+ years as a blue badge; 5 years as a green. So, 63+9 did not equal Rule of 75 and certainly did not equal the 55+15 criteria.

What was criteria for ERP? Did everybody at certain age and time of service get it, or was it partially based on performance or other factors?

Train managers in how to work with the aging worker. In my manager's case I was only the 2nd employee he had approaching retirement and the 1st one died before he could get there. Managers should be trained in how to help their staff toward retirement.

What a piece of crap! OP, (much) better you teach INTEL managers how NOT to lie and fabricate bogus data, e.g. to promote political speeches, their pets and empty promises. Instead ZERO contribution and damages these morons/managers do all over, you (OP) should teach them how to do real work and make true contribution to company's values.

Does it sound reasonable?

OP - amazing mater post #gold

Rule of 65.

how did you avoid the ERP if you are 63? Surely you have at least made Age of 60 rule.

how did you avoid the ERP if you are 63? Surely you have at least made Age of 60 rule.

Ha! Are you saying they ISPd that one good manager?

Who understood how to manage a senior employee? Figures.

Golden post, OP. If you didn't get the ERP and you are 63, you must have joined Intel late in your career. I did too. I was actually initially told I was 'too old for Intel culture.' They hired me anyway after the RCG they really wanted backed out, and back then I was still smart enough to know this was an anomaly and I'd be lucky if I could hang on to 65. Somehow, after that, all of HR's various 'appreciation' and 'GPTW' programs lulled me into thinking Intel was some kind of great big devoted happy family. Being in HR and helping to promote those messages, I guess I thought it was true. Much later, again because I was working with HR programs and recruiting and knew about these things, I was a little disturbed to find out that the goal was to make the majority of new hires RCGs. Bringing in external senior talent was just about unheard of in those days--now we have lots more of it, but back then, not. Next, I started to worry because of all the emphasis on career development. This makes a lot of sense if most of your hires are, indeed, RCGs. But when you are in your 60s already and have 40 years of experience in your profession, what is there left to develop? Focal was always hard as a result. I went through the motions anyway, as required, and always got S/SL3 and even an occasional E and once an SL2. But the writing was on the wall--they really don't know what to do with the senior employees. Was a bit shocked last year when even a Fellow or two got the axe. And, you know, there is some sense to this churn in a tech company. But as OP states, there must be a better way to value and transition senior employees other than putting a Focal target on their backs and sending them out to sea on the floating ice.

Sounds like they should have given you the ERP.

Keep in mind that Intel makes logic, they don't use it.

Intel should learn from the government. There are many ways to maximize the older workers contributions. They can always work part-time, and/or mentor the new crowds giving actual lectures and training (not the VP/PE/Manager power point). Younger workers need a kick in the butt when it comes to setting realistic goals. The problem is that there is too much ego and insecurity from VPs and leaders to actually do all these. They are extremely territorial and dictatorial.

Golden post.

Your proposals are too logical, as such it is BK'd as he doesn't have a track record of doing anything that makes sense