1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
For record keeping going forward in history.
13 replies (most recent on top)
I heard the rumor that Pat and LBT had a combination of almost 40000 Intel employees layoffs the last few years. So I guess they should be on top of Andy G. Between Pat and LBT I don't know who laid off more employees to be on top of each other. Pat is done at Intel and LBT just start and is still managing it so he could take the top spot above Pat but we don't know the exact number of laid off employees between these two CEOs. I guess they probably gave some fake layoff numbers to manipulate the stock prices to maximize their profits.
My 2 cents are worth more than Intel $500 share !
Your one Bitcoin is worth more than $70000 dollars !
- Spread the bread
- Look between the bread
- Smell between the bread
- Smile
- Then lick my dodooo hole. Its moist
Let me guess… employees are also the reason why there are no foundry customers? Also while at it blame us for the declining global warming, the wars in the world, all the natural disasters to justify headcount reduction. You have to be a very gullible Intel employee to jump into this boat!
you know the saying" misery loves company", only a miserable person comes to a public blog rooting for the downfall of another person or people. If you check, they are power hungry personalities with failing projects
@k1 you sound like a vindictive bitter person, no offense… there is no one that is happy with their life who will sit here blaming employees for the misfortune of a company that everyone knows was caused by leadership. On top of it hope that employees get canned…. Who messed you up to this level??
@k1 I hope your head count gets canned so you can also feel the reality of life
@fc Any company that can't cancel projects (and the resulting headcount) will fall behind.
This is true for all industries but especially in tech, due to the relatively short product life cycles.
The best thing that LBT has done is to reduce the number of VPs from about 450 to 200, because each one of them had to maintain headcount to justify their continued employment.
Yes, it is harsh to be laid off. Life is sometimes like that.
I don't believe @ec doesn't have failing projects and will not win the layoff lottery
@ec so you are trying to say intel's lack of firing front line workers and reassigning them is the reason for intel's decline? what rubbish are you spewing...... because in all the groups I have worked for (4 total) in my 20 years at Intel, we have never been at or above headcount. We all know Intel lost its leading edge due to its inability to jump on market trends on time, loss of major customers and secure certain markets like mobile. Why desensitize things such as layoffs that affect mostly frontline employees and their families as the reason Intel is declining.... if you were to make it on the layoff ticket would your dub as still type what you just typed. One would hope Intel would have a CEO and leaders who actually care enough about the people on the floor to make decisions to save their means of livelihood and hope also such that such decisions are not placed in the hands of half-wits like you.
1st of all I have never worked in a team in all my years at Intel with enough, not to talk of excess headcount. @ec are you trying to tell us that every project you have worked on was successful, or if you were the one who happened to fall on the chopping block, you would spew the nonsense you just spewed here? The mishap or decline of Intel is not a fault of the front line workers or number of front line workers Intel has. it was caused by missed opportunities we are all trying to recover from. At the end of the day, 30% or whatever % headcount loss are people. People who served Intel diligently, if the company decides to acknowledge them as people and take preventative measures to not remove their livelihood…. We all applaud Intel as that speaks volume. Front line workers are human beings with mouths to feed. Let’s be guided how we desensitize things such as these. Everyone prays to work for a CEO/leader with a concise, who acknowledges and feels the pain of the common man, who also happens to be the front line worker on the floor giving it their best.
@e6 A person could reasonably argue that the reluctance to shed headcount led to the decline of Intel.
Instead of cancelling failing projects and shuttering excess capacity, the company for at least 30 years chose to hold on to excess capacity and reshuffle projects and divisions wi--y-nilly.
LBT is merely doing what every CEO since Andy Grove should have done.
it's not magic, or evil.
@e6 Within 4 years of its 1968 founding, Intel laid off 30% of the workforce.
This is something the company has done on a regular cadence, and is common in the industry, so not anything special about Intel.
Andy Grove laid off ~7K to 8K employees ( ~ 30% workforces ) in 1985
Overview of Intel Layoffs Under Andy Grove
Andy Grove served as CEO of Intel from 1987 to 1998. His leadership was marked by significant strategic shifts, particularly in the mid-1980s, which included layoffs as part of a broader transformation of the company.
Key Layoff Events
1985 Layoffs
Context: Intel was struggling financially due to declining profits in its memory chip business.
Decision: Grove and co-founder Gordon Moore asked themselves what a new CEO would do if they were fired. This led to the decision to exit the memory chip market.
Impact: Approximately one-third of Intel's workforce was laid off as the company shifted its focus to microprocessors.
Strategic Shift
Focus Change: The layoffs were part of a strategic pivot from memory chips to microprocessors, which proved to be a crucial decision for Intel's future.
Outcome: This shift resulted in significant revenue growth, with Intel's revenues increasing dramatically in the following years.
Summary of Layoff Impact
Year Layoff Percentage Reason for Layoffs Strategic Outcome
1985 ~33% Shift from memory chips to microprocessors Major revenue growth and profitability