Slashdot Mirror
Intel to Lay Off Thousands
symbolset writes to say that "Intel is expecting to lay off 10% of their workforce in a move to become more competitive against rival AMD. From the article: 'The Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker, having suffered several financially disappointing quarters, launched an internal analysis in April to find ways to increase its efficiency. [CEO Paul] Otellini is scheduled to announce the results of the analysis, including the layoff, on Tuesday after the stock market closes, sources familiar with the plans said. Intel has about 100,000 employees worldwide, so the cut could be as high as 10 percent of the company's staff.' Coverage also at The Register, internetnews.com, and more as it develops at Google News. Reuters has the number at up to 16,000."
I think Intel has more class than some other companies.
But this is still a huge number of people to get rid off. Don't they do these sort of checks all the time, on a department basis. This sound more like a simple reaction to we can't do anything better, so we will fire people. A bad solution to a problem if you ask me.
Middle management is a great waste of skin. Plus they often take a fairly large salary while not generating revenue or a product.
Well, maybe all those qualified engineers will go on to find jobs that are more productive, and build better things for society.
Unfortunately, successful companies have a bad habit of hiring people to do new projects 'because they can'. The money is there to hire more people, so, they hire more people. The more successful the company is, the less scrutiny is applied to how likely the new proect is t result in actual new revenue for the company.
After enough of this, the company finds itself burdened with a lot of labor working on things that are not really relevant o the company's main business, which negatively impacts the company's performance, and ultimately forces a layoff.
It would be better, of course, if sucessful companies could avoid the temptation in the first place and give that money to shareholders.
paintball
What are you smoking -- I'd like some!
First off, Apple has between 5-6% of the total PC base in the world right now. They have a loooong way to come even close to matching ONE of IBM (Lenovo), HP, or Dell. Intel made a nice marketing coup with lining up Apple, but its no panacea of profit.
Two, yes Intel goofed on the 64 instruction set. But WinXp runs on Athlon and Pentiums, and there's very little real 64 bit computing taking place on corporate desktops even today. Intel needed to make cheaper, faster, more efficient processors -- something they've finally done with the dual-core. Both server and desktop segements will do benefit from the latest designs.
Strikes me now that Intel finally has a decent product in the marketplace again, they're cutting back on R&D since they're 'in the game' once again. When you're behind, you have to spend money to catch up. Allowing AMD to beat them for so long on price and performance had to be galling to a company the size of Intel -- someone was asleep at the switch.
I love competition, I think Intel is in for some good times now, but I doubt they'll ever be as dominant as they were in the early 90s ever again. AMD has their work cut out for them, but getting where they are today was MUCH harder than what they're facing now.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
That's why there are Unions. And, as typcially happens, the Union becomes exactly what the employee hated about management - a political, bottom line driven organization used to forcefully extract concessions from the opposite side. They're just working for you instead of the other side now.
It all comes back to monkeyspace. Big corporations exceed it, and need a kick in the pants (or regulations) to return balance. That's one reason why many small businesses are not regulated, and why many don't need it (oh sure, some do...some really do) - the 50 employee limit is within a standard human monkeyspace.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Back in my day, we remained competitive by building a superior product at an affordable price, up-hill both ways!
/get off my lawn
"People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
- Gov. Jesse Ventura
This probably is not the simplistic knee jerk reaction that you describe. I'm sure that any of us could identify a lot of redundancy or simple non-performance in any organization of 100,000 people. If you were running an organization with redundancy and dead wood and you were faced with competition from AMD then what would you do?
I have a neighbor who works at the Intel office here in the Silicon Valley and she's known for quite a while that these were in the works. IIRC, she was talking about this back in April or May.
One thing that I've always thought about company layoff planning is that there's a difficult choice to be made over when to notify employees that a layoff is in the works. Too little notice and people feel like they're being dumped without warning, too much and you have a long period of tension and a lot of people slacking off because they know that they're headed for the unemployment line.
When I worked for a division of a major company that was planning layoffs, we all knew in June that the offices in California were going to be closed by the end of the year, and offical notice came in October. The company did something that I considered a stand-up thing: they told us who was going (in October) and gave us official permission for the rest of the year to look for work using company resources. It was cool for them to give us that much notice (though because of the slow market at the time, it was hard to find work even with such a long lead time). However, a lot of employees (including ones who really were supposed to be doing something else) spent the time building houses of cards out of their company business cards, driving remote-controlled cars around the cubes, and generally goofing off.
Again, it was a cool thing for the company to do (and I am aware that there are financial incentives for getting your employees hired off before closing an office--but I don't think those offset the cost of paying them salary for three months) but I can see that there are employers who couldn't afford to do that.
Here's hoping all the folks getting pink slips at Intel can find something else to do as quickly as they'd like.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I don't see why laying off people would make them more competitive against AMD. Sure, their HR department will have less work afterwards, but they're not the ones who will make Intel more competitive.
This is just to make the actions go up and make the investors richer, but it won't make them more competitive to AMD, and more attractive to customers.
My compassion will to the laid off employees, and my money will go to AMD when I'll buy a new chip.