"The price of justice is eternal publicity." Arnold Bennett

A Hire-and-Fire Shop – called Intel?

  

Chronology and Pattern of Events:

April 14th 1998:  Intel announces plans in Q1 revenue report to reduce workforce by 3,000 employees during the year.  [This layoff announcement pleases Wall Street, but by the end of the year headcount actually increased – why?*]

December 8th 2000:Part of this focus…will include reassessing our staffing needs. This is a normal business practice under these circumstances, and is a necessary step--not an extraordinary one--to keeping Intel healthy. For the next quarter, we expect headcount will remain approximately flat.”  [However by the end of the year 2000 headcount actually increased – why?*]

March 8th 2001:  “The company expect(s) to reduce headcount by approximately 5,000 people over the next 9 months predominantly through attrition. There may be some localized workforce reductions.” [By the end of  2001 headcount actually increased – why?*]

Q3 2001: Voluntary Separation Plan: While Craig Barrett announced that Intel could reduce headcount by 5,000 through attrition Intel now implements a Voluntary Separation Program, and the program is developed to augment normal attrition, because headcount targets cannot be met by simple turnover.

October 2001: According to information obtained anonymously, a management pass down announces that a 12,000 head reduction [approx] will occur during 2002. It is projected that the targets will average from 1,000 to 3,000 heads per quarter globally with the bulk of the targeting taking place in the latter part of the year.  These headcount targets are not announced to state employment offices in any state, and this reduction in workforce has not been announced publicly to the best of our knowledge.

 

[The target number of 12,000 heads reduction for 2002 may or may not be public knowledge, and it is important to remember that this statement remains unofficial in principle. It is our considered opinion however that, based upon the source of this information, the number presented here is totally accurate; furthermore this information is presented here as a matter of significant public interest.]

 

For more information on employee targeting click here

                                                 Summary of Intel headcount reduction

Year

To Reduce

Unofficial actual reduced #

1998

3,000

10 – 11,000

2000/2001

5,000

20-22,000

2002

12,000  (unofficial)

Not available yet

 

 But the numbers do not tally:

                                                       Intel worldwide official head count

Month

Year

Employees

December

1997

63,700

 

1998

64,500

 

1999

70,200

 

2000

86,100

 

2001

83,400

 

*Why do the overall headcount numbers not tally, ergo increase, when the reduction numbers would imply lower overall headcount figures? We submit only one reason here and for the purposes of this paper we ask the reader to consider our former statement on employee rotation:  

“Our inside sources have provided FACE Intel with accurate information and they report another trend at Intel: targeting of older employees 50 and older or employees who are close to retirement.  Intel plans to replace older, more experienced workers with younger workers on lower salaries, or college graduates and foreign workers via Globalization in India, the Far East and Eastern Europe/ Russia.   

Meanwhile FACE Intel has already received numerous reports from targeted employees. We are in the process of establishing a network of such employees, so please contact us so that we may properly initiate a class action lawsuit to prevent Intel from victimizing their so-called "greatest asset"! 

[NB: Further treatment on the headcount numbers that do not tally will be presented in a separate major article!]

Firing: if not through attrition – then how?

If employees do not leave a company of their own volition or if natural attrition is inadequate in reducing such headcount expenses, then other means must be found to dispose of these employees. 

Let’s examine two areas: 

·        Redeployment

·        Corrective Action Plan 

Redeployment:  

Redeployment has been treated effectively and it is the subject of this web page: click here

Corrective Action Plan: 

A Corrective Action Plan provides an essential tool to managers who may wish to target one or more employees for termination or eventually for redeployment.   The criteria for targeting may be varied and may include any combination of the following employee types: 

·         Older employees

·         Employees who run afoul of their own manager or the employee’s face simply no longer “fits”

·         Employees who do not [or will not] consistently work hours outside of normal mandated business hours and/or insist on overtime when “Exempt”

·         Expensive employees on high salaries, or employees that regularly engender significant business expenses, for example on further education

·         Outspoken employees who speak their mind “publicly” in front of business associates or employees who regularly break protocol  

Other reasons may apply as well, depending upon the particular business group identified:  new managers may wish for a “clean sweep” or desire to clean house in a group with low morale or internal technical difficulties, or just because management never understood how to manage the group anyway – in other words, the reasons may be many and varied. 

Regardless of the reasons for a CAP one thing is certain: a CAP – like the ranking and rating system itself - is not designed to correct or to aid an employee’s development, the CAP is designed to isolate, intimidate, humiliate and destroy.  Based on our information most CAPs result in the employee walking or being terminated, and many of the employees that took VSP in 2001 were CAP’d. 

If you are an employee and you believe you have been unfairly targeted with a CAP, our suggestion is to speak out and fight back and not to lie down and take the punishment – you don’t deserve it, because there is nothing wrong with you.  You may be too old, too smart, too vocal or too expensive in the eyes of Corporate management, but you do not deserve to be run over roughshod by a Mack truck of a company and die like a stray dog in the road!   

 

Summary:  

With these facts we have shown the pattern of reduction in headcount through recent years and wish to stress the most important point: when a company does not publicly announce layoffs there are probably good reasons with respect to their Corporate pocketbook, and here are a few:  

·        In many states formally announced layoffs will hurt the company with the state because unemployment penalties will be levied versus the company by the state, and these penalties can be significant in dollar terms.  

·        When a company is laying off employees in a recovering economy, such action can lead to analyst questions or questions on overall business health from outside sources; such questions can be harmful to a company’s stock valuation and hurt confidence among the top brass in management. 

·        Announced layoffs can frequently lead to lower company morale overall and decreased productivity among employees – sometimes productivity is severely damaged when the big chop is announced because employees will work-to-rule or reduce their extended work hours.

All of these factors and more are very important, but the key learning here is that whatever targeting method has been used, whether CAP or redeployment, it will isolate the employee, threaten the employee’s stability and marginalize his/her ability to function. 

For all of the reasons above, if management has unfairly targeted you then we suggest that you contact FACE Intel immediately.

Home.jpg (1255 bytes)  Top.jpg (1141 bytes)  E-mail.jpg (1276 bytes)