Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

@H3irxAq-1nhv I'm very well aware of the legal definitions of the EEOC protected classes, as is everyone who has spent ~ 2 decades at Intel. My post is wrt to workforce participation which is what poster @H3irxAq-tmq (or you, if you are the same poster) is referencing. I don't interpret the post as being related to any legal statutes or definitions of age, rather, an opinion of "older" employees based on poster's "experience", hence I stand by my response in that in my opinion, according to statistical data, and as it relates to workforce participation, I'm not considered "older" in the labor force at age 40.

The current cut-off age where workforce participation declines and employees are considered "older" is 55, the middle age of the current labor force is 35 - 45, the EEOC guideline is irrelevant (statistical data from the PEW Research Center: http://pewrsr.ch/1adnWGq)

Based on my experience, I have not witnessed any "older" employees at Intel who were either "resting on their laurels" or who had less experience than their younger colleagues. The end.

I'm surprised a 3rd year law student doesn't realize that the EEOC defines older as 40+.

actually I'm not, "older" group is aged 55+, mid-age group is 35 - 45...you can see this for yourself on the website for the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the Dept of Labor located at: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.pdf

And thank you for the birthday wishes :)

Sorry, but happy birthday and you ARE in the older group now.

@H3irxAq-tmq Wow, I'd really like to see what statistics you're citing about older workers "But a larger proportion tend to rest on their laurels and not push as hard as they used to. As a result, companies (especially tech companies) tend to lay them off in greater numbers (without deliberately trying to), since their performance reviews are statistically more likely to be worse" I point this out because I just completed BUS - Diversity and the Workplace course which specifically addresses age discrimination and I can absolutely, without a doubt, tell you that you are wrong. The statistics do not say this. I'll spare you the factual data and highly encourage you to visit the PEW Research Center if you feel as you do.

BTW, I just turned 40, I'm not in the "older" category though I advocate for them because your statement is simply, flat out false. Also, I'm 3rd year pre-law, if you are an Intel ee I also highly encourage you to get some diversity training before you ever become a manager there as that type of stereotyping is detrimental to the business

tagging this thread: #agediscrimination

Age discrimination in play. HR whistle blower needed!

I posted this in a comment on the age-based discrimination thread. Last summer, Intel said the layoffs were merit-based, by using the stock levels, and it just happens to be a coincidence that the ages of the laid off workers skewed older. Per the EEOC, this alone is not illegal (since Intel is claiming another reason for the layoffs instead of age).

What MIGHT be illegal, however, is the tendency for older workers to get lower stock levels despite being successful in the first place. Somebody needs to pull the data and compare the age breakdown of successful + L4/L5 stock. If that is a skewed distribution (and I'm certain it must be), then it certainly sounds like clear-cut age discrimination in compensation.

This is a great opportunity for someone in HR to blow the whistle on this.

@tmq. Not sure where you work, but in my area (engineering) the older workers easily justify their pay. That goes double when comparing them to RCG's from the past 2-3 years with their entitled "only if I feel like it" attitude.

Just speaking the truth as I see it.

In my experience, older employees tend to be less productive than mid-age ones, but end up being paid more. Mid-age employees have experience and energy, whereas the older ones tend to mainly have experience (and less energy). The problem is, in the fast changing tech world, an older employee is not likely to have any more knowledge or experience than a mid-age employee, but tends to be paid more anyway. This means that, relative to the amount they are paid, their performance is going to be rated worse. Now this isn't always true; There are plenty of older employees at Intel who are fantastic. But a larger proportion tend to rest on their laurels and not push as hard as they used to. As a result, companies (especially tech companies) tend to lay them off in greater numbers (without deliberately trying to), since their performance reviews are statistically more likely to be worse.

It is obvious form the data of last two layoffs, the employees over 40 and with long experience at where targeted. If an employee has been with Intel for 15 years and then by design in the last two or three reviews such employees were marked down in their performance rating and their spineless mangers fearing for their own jobs bullshit with the employees that low rating and pay increase has been depressed acrossed the board. Then such employees after a year or two were targeted for layoff.

http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2015/08/intel_layoffs_former_employees.html