Broadcom Laying Off LTE and Modem Design Employees

Dawn Kawamoto writes "Within days of closing its deal to acquire LTE-related assets from Renesas Electronics, Broadcom is now taking the hatchet to its own internal LTE and modem design team members by doling out pink slips. Although several hundred Broadcom workers in the U.S. and overseas are getting layoff notices, the figure could go substantially higher because the company expects to cut roughly $45 million in operating expenses relating to the deal between now and the next 12 months."

Comments

the shaft

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey guys thanks for working hard enough to let us buy out a competitor and then fire you. Appreciate it.

-Management

ha captcha is brighter

Re:the shaft

[cheesybagel]

In other words the management is telling them they suck so they had to buy a competitor to do their job. I thought Renesas was a Japanese company?

Re:the shaft

[bill_mcgonigle]

and yet the employers still expect some sort of company loyalty...

Re:the shaft

[Anonymous Coward]

The employees were probably only engineers, historically the "profession" with the least professional protection.

Re:the shaft

[Anonymous Coward]

Never, ever, ever expect loyalty from ANY company. They are for-profit business constructs and don't give a shit about you except with regards to how you make them money.

Give your loyalty to people instead.

Re:the shaft

[Swave An deBwoner]

Oh no, there's another profession with an even worse record.

At least engineers haven't been targeted by Jack The Ripper and other serial murderers. Yet.

Re:the shaft

[RabidReindeer]

The employees were probably only engineers, historically the "profession" with the least professional protection.

That's because you're talking about people too anti-social to form a professional organization and too "white collar" to consider unionizing.

Re:the shaft

[Joining Yet Again]

Bingo.

I'd never put any real effort into work for a private employer, except in a country where my employment was heavily protected.

I don't know what possesses people to think any differently, but I think it's some variant of chasing a dragon.

Re:the shaft

[davester666]

And management deserves an extra-large bonus for realizing they had hired losers that needed to be replaced.

Re:the shaft

[jhol13]

Renesas is. But Renesas Mobile, which they really bought, is in a way a Finnish company as most workers are Finns. Renesas bought Wirelesss Modem division from Nokia back 2009.

Re:the shaft

[colordev]

TFA says "This is the original Nokia modem team, it started work on LTE, a better part of a decade ago. These are some of the guys who created the LTE standard and were involved in the original algorithm work of LTE long before other companies were developing LTE, so we believe we found some really good talent here."

Most of those ex-Nokia, ex-Renesas people are located in city of Oulu in Finland, and a few months ago all of them almost went unemployed because Renesas run out of money; right when this new modem tool was ready for the markets. And miraculously their jobs were saved by the bell... by the Broadcom's offer.

Broadcom now laying off its people is just an aftershock to Nokia's and Renesas' failures to utilize their former talent pools properly. These kind's of event, once again, hi-light the fact that Nokia was once doing all kinds of right gizmos. But unfortunately its leadership has been failing the company for a full decade now. In fact, those who have been leading Nokia during the last decade should never hired for any non-gargoyle jobs. The kind of waste of human creativity and stockholders' property they caused is just sad.

Re:the shaft

[Anonymous Coward]

dont give loyalty to anyone ... it will not be returned.

time for a union!!

[Joe_Dragon]

Workers need more rights as well basic healthcare

Re:time for a union!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Workers need more rights as well basic healthcare

Why do you want to hurt the Job Creators?

Re:time for a union!!

[Anonymous Coward]

so fine let people go on to the jail / prison care system

Re:time for a union!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Workers need a fair wage, and only a fair wage. The reason we have come to expect benefits is because of wage controls during World War 2. After the war, employers figured out it was cheaper to offer benefits instead of wages. Once the equation went the other way, employers dumped them or exchanged them for less expensive plans (pensions became 401(k) plans, now health insurance will become Obamacare).

Re:time for a union!!

[Joining Yet Again]

The workers are the job creators. The owners hoard the means of production, meaning people who could work cannot work.

Capitalist zealots flip this round.

Re:time for a union!!

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'll bet you don't want to pay for any of these so-called "rights", amirite?

Re:time for a union!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You a Taker "worker" because you forming a union , to steal from Makers Boss!

Re:time for a union!!

[anubi]

Would it be better for this whole nation to be riddled with disease carriers? Including those who prepared your food?

I take my cats to the vet for the same reason.

Re:time for a union!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to pay for them. What I don't want to pay for is Wars On Concepts and Brown People.

Smart Move

[EMG at MU]

This isn't people with MBAs being evil, this is good business. They are getting a ton of talented engineers from Renessas. So if you need 100 engineers and all the sudden you buy another company that has another 100 engineers, you keep the best 100 and let the rest go.

Don't ever expect a company to be loyal to you for a split second. If they can can your ass a day before your 40th year anniversary with the company to save a few bucks on the quarterly report they will. They legally have to. Corporations in America have to make the most money they can, and the officers of the company are bound to increase shareholder value.

It is completely amoral. McD and Walmart are not evil for not giving employees living wage, they are just doing their legal duty to increase shareholder value. To attribute the (mis)treatment of employees to anything besides American Corporate Capitalism is ignoring the reality of our economy.

Re:Smart Move

[Bucc5062]

Bullshit...

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders

This is not about shareholder profits except for the few greedy fucks that gain from the mergers. In one point I will agree, this is American Corporate Capitalism and it is a mentality that will eventually take down this country more so they any terrorist. Mergers rarely help the greater social good and in the long run, that actually can run counter to shareholders (unless you are referring to micro-traders).

Re:Smart Move

[EMG at MU]

Mergers rarely help the greater social good and in the long run, that actually can run counter to shareholders (unless you are referring to micro-traders).

It's not about the greater social good, and it will never be about the greater social good. It's about adding the most shareholder value possible. It doesn't matter who or what the shareholders are: day traders, hedge funds, long term investors, its all completely irrelevant.

Also, shareholders are not all equal. You reference "the few greedy fucks that gain from the mergers." The few greedy fucks probably own most of the company. Icahn wants to destroy every company he invests in and sell it off piece by piece. Because he is a huge shareholder, he can demand that and replace the board with people that support his vision. That's the way it works.

Re:Smart Move

[scott9693]

Don't ever expect a company to be loyal to you for a split second. If they can can your ass a day before your 40th year anniversary with the company to save a few bucks on the quarterly report they will.

I don't know why I keep seeing this mantra - its mostly incorrect. The law states it's the companies responsibility to make decisions in the best interests of the shareholder *not* maximise profits. Often, it is to maximise profits, but it can also be to add incentives like job security and benefits that attracts and keeps the best talent. Please stop saying they have to legally have to "save a few bucks" or make profit forsaking everything else. It is also my understanding that a Mission Statement can trump the law like "taking care of the environment", or "to better the living standards of African people", which would allow them to spend time/resources on their "missions".

Re:Smart Move

[EMG at MU]

If adding incentives and benefits in turn leads to shareholder value then that's what a company will do. I don't disagree.

The current prevailing thought is leading corporations to consolidate operations in an effort to increase operating margin. During the recession companies have been figuring out ways to grow revenue without growing operational costs. You hear it all the time, companies are getting workers to be more productive.

If whatever operating assumptions the company operates under say that firing you will lead to greater shareholder value, they will do it regardless of all else. Some companies don't come to this conclusion, some do. It seems like Broadcom is assuming that letting these people go will increase their value.

Re:Smart Move

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a bitter husk of a person.

Re:Smart Move

[EMG at MU]

You're a bitter husk of a person.

Maybe, but I don't think observing the obvious says anything about me as a person. I never said it's good or bad, it just is. We all feel for people who get laid off, but it's not surprising in this case, it would actually be surprising if they didn't lay people off.

I think that the sooner we get past the "Corporations are evil" circle jerk we can start having a serious discussion about corporate governance reform and what as a society we expect from corporations. "I want a living wage" and "I want to get a meal for less than $5" should be mutually exclusive phrases, but in America consumers say both. Unfortunately it's usually the same people who are mistreated by Corporations that are supporting their behavior.

Re:Smart Move

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the poor fucks who can't afford to do anything BUT eat off the dollar menu. They're the ones who should be voting with their dollars and not buying off of the dollar menu. Pay them more, and they can fucking afford to go out for a steak or cook a decent meal at home once in a while. Thereby increasing the amount of steak chefs in demand, and the amount of beef cattle that we need, and the amount of well-paid butchers and truck drivers. The list goes on and on. When the workers get fucked, everyone gets fucked. Oh, except for the 8-9 figure a year executives, somehow they're still just fucking fine.

Re:Smart Move

[EMG at MU]

Your exactly right.

Raise the minimum wage to living wage --> corporate profits take a hit --> your 401k goes down in value --> panic --> fuck the poor, the minimum wage should not go up.

Break that cycle, shit might get better.

Re:Smart Move

[EMG at MU]

The only problem, and it's a slight problem, is that mass murder is illegal and corporations maximizing shareholder value is actually the law. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but if you don't like the game change the rules, don't be angry at people who play by them. (I know it's impossible to change the rules because the corporations own congress...)

Re:Smart Move

[Joining Yet Again]

Companies aren't moral agents - their owners are, however, and are responsible for all the company's actions.

McD+Walmart owners are immoral for not giving their employees a living wage, and their directors are immoral for their voluntary complicity.

Re:Smart Move

[Bucc5062]

Clearly we will differ, but your view is one that leads to chaos. Time and time again, when the actions of the gentry act against a long term great good they, and the soceity they rule fail. Perhaps one day humanity will figure it out, but with people like you promoting a destructive approach to business, I doubt it.

Re:Smart Move

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't people with MBAs being evil, this is good business.

Life has a funny way of teaching self-absorbed fools like you humility
with a good hard dose of reality. It may come in the form of
colon cancer for you, it may come in the form of finding out your wife
is fucking the tennis pro, or it may come in some other form,
but sooner or later it comes. And when it does come, be grateful
for the good times you had before it all went to shit. Immediately
after that you will find out what you are _really_ made of, and whether you
can survive true adversity or whether you will wilt and fall down like
many privileged people tend to do when their artifices are removed and
they have too stand naked ( metaphorically speaking ) before whatever
God they happen to believe in.

Re:Smart Move

[TheGratefulNet]

agreed; this bullshit about 'they HAVE to do all they can to make money!' is just a smokescreen.

they WANT to do this, but they are not compelled to, by force of law.

Re:Smart Move

[EMG at MU]

Then there are a lot of people who are immoral, because anyone who has a 401k is probably invested in mutual funds, and those funds are usually invested in at least Walmart or McDonalds.

Morals aren't real, their just things created to keep us in line.

Re:Smart Move

[EMG at MU]

Just because I recognize the way it is doesn't mean I support it. I'm not a 1%er, I'm a 9 to 5 firmware engineer. I'm just not naive about how the game is being played. The sooner we accept that these are the rules governing corporations the sooner we as a society can have a constructive conversation about how to change it.

Attributing this behavior to greed is ignoring the problem. It's way beyond greed. Its systemic, the entire modern western way of life is based on exploiting someone or something for the gain of material wealth.

Re:Smart Move

[Xest]

"They legally have to. Corporations in America have to make the most money they can"

Is that actually true or are you talking crap?

I'm just amazed that any country would have a law that states companies legally have to make as much money as they can at all costs. It would also seem to go against America's ideals of freedom - shouldn't it be up to those in charge of the company to determine what the company's priorities are rather than have it legally enforced that they should only focus on profit?

In the UK there's been a renewed focus in recent years on responsible companies. I'm surprised the US hasn't seen the same given how much harm we've witnessed from companies that pursue profit above all else and at any cost.

Re:Smart Move

[Joining Yet Again]

Then there are a lot of people who are immoral, because anyone who has a 401k is probably invested in mutual funds, and those funds are usually invested in at least Walmart or McDonalds.

Yup. Pay attention to your behaviour, and take responsibility for it.

Also, morality is not black and white. There are degrees of good and bad behaviour.

Morals aren't real, their just things created to keep us in line.

So, morals aren't real, they're just real. OK.

Re:Smart Move

[Bucc5062]

"I'm just not naive about how the game is being played"

Nor am I and we already do know this is how they play the game. We also know how to fix it, but We Don't. As a Ninetofiver do you vote for representatives and work to help protect economic stability? I can easily state that I support actions by the FCC to stop the overthrow of net neutrality. I support that actions of the SEC and other agencies that work to stop mergers that would have a negative impact on society. Simply put, I support a government that works to actively protect society from greedy fucks.

You say "that's the way it works" like it is game over. I say "the way it works is bad, let's fix it". You make it to complex. This is about greed, this is about power. The west does not have a patent on either and the western way of life is not based on pure exploitation. Again, that is universal and practiced by all bad people. The way to fix it is to call it out, stop it, and then present a better model. At the least I try to something more then a fatalistic stance of "that's just how it is".

Amoral?

[Rob Y.]

I'm so sick of hearing "companies are amoral" as if that's some kind of excuse for psychopathic behavior. If Broadcom had to buy another company to produce a successful LTE product, it's because they (management) failed to produce one themselves. And not necessarily because the engineers in charge failed - more likely because some dopey manager with herd mentality stuck to the 'support Windows and the rest will follow' script.

But "amoral" companies used to provide their employees with a modicum of security, because they were expected too. The rules have been changed, by Ayn Rand fans too dense to see that "Atlas Shrugged" is the same kind of utopian claptrap as "Das Kapital". In John Galt's hidden mountain paradise, I'm sure there were people to clean the toilets - and I'll bet they were treated a lot better than Broadcom's employees...

Re:Amoral?

[EMG at MU]

Companies are amoral. Period. The people running the company have to do what will produce the most shareholder value. It's not an excuse, its reality. That's the rules of the game that we all play. Don't like it, join the non-profit sector (which is also really fucked up), or lead a revolution.

If somehow treating employees well lead to greater shareholder value, companies would do it. There are a few that try to leverage this, like Ben and Jerry's executive salary scheme. I can't think of many others though, especially not publicly traded companies. The problem is that (American) consumers demand the cheapest shit possible without regard to who and how it was made (of course thats a generalization but it is mostly true).

Most people would buy widget X over widget Y if widget X cost 5% less, even if the company that makes widget X is killing the environment and shitting on its employees. If you figure out how to make people pay more for widget Y, then you might be able fix the problem.

Re:Amoral?

[lgw]

In John Galt's hidden mountain paradise, I'm sure there were people to clean the toilets - and I'll bet they were treated a lot better than Broadcom's employees...

If I ever found myself in Galt's Gultch that's what I'd do. Supply and demand would work out well for me, I think. (BTW, have you ever actually read Atlas Shrugged? It's rather a dystopian novel than the reverse, and it's OK fiction if you just skip the 100 page Galt speech towards the end).

Re:Amoral?

[lexman098]

I agree with your general philosophy about corporations in the last few posts, and I don't think you're trolling. That said, we *have* found a way to get people to buy widget Y. We're not "making" them, and they won't "pay more" (relatively), but the solution is of course to tax widget X to try and offset the aforementioned environmental killing. Also, minimum wage.

I expect you would agree that government regulation/oversight is the best combatant/balance for "amoral" corporatism.

Re:Amoral?

[EMG at MU]

I think that governmental regulation could address the problem. My fear would be that the government would just create loopholes for some corporations while applying regulations to others.

I think a big part of the problem is consumers. We want cheap stuff, we don't care who made it, how much they were paid, and how sustainable the process was. Until that changes, there will be no political will to regulate corporations so that they have to treat employees with dignity.

And it's not easy to try to be a "good consumer". I'm a member of a grocery co-op, and most of the stuff is way more expensive. My partner wont shop there because "I can just go to the mega chain down the street and get all this stuff cheaper". I'm in a position where I can choose to spend my money on a more expensive product because it's important to me that the workers are treated fairly and the product is sustainable. That's not a choice a lot of people can make. (And I still feel bad because the only reason I can make that choice is because I have a good salary at a company that offshores manufacturing because it saves money).

Another huge problem is the privatization of retirement. The 401k sucks for the average person while it is a huge boon to Wall St. If enough consumers got together and said "Mega Chain X, we wan't you to treat your employees well and only use sustainable products / processes, and we think it's ok that you only make 100 million in profit this year instead of 150 million if it means you are a sustainable company", then we will all shit our pants when our 401k goes down 20% in value. We are part of the system now, we cant just sit there and say fuck corporate profits because our retirement, and our public pensions depend on Wall St. doing well. Right now Wall St. doing well also means a lot of Americans aren't doing well. Unfortunately we don't see this dependency.
/ramble

Re:Amoral?

[lexman098]

People will never, en-masse, just "choose" to buy from a company because it treats its employees better. Even if we all made good salaries this would happen more, but not enough to make a huge difference. It's too difficult to keep track of which companies are good and which are bad (which is very grey to begin with). It's just not a *good* solution. I may come off sounding as if I think the government is the place for all our answers, but in this case I think that's what it's for. We collectively create these organizations that track and punish "evil" companies so we don't have to actively think about it every day.

Also, I think it's good that we have a 401k system. If the company goes under we don't loose our pension. It's true that the funds are tied to "the market", but you can choose to direct your 401k to any type of assets you choose. It doesn't have to be Apple stock.

Re:Amoral?

[EMG at MU]

and I don't think you're trolling.

You know I bet a lot of people do think I'm trolling. That didn't even occur to me.

I'm trying to get people to move past the "fuck management" circlejerk and start talking about how America built, and is now built upon, the corporate capitalist system. If we wan't shit to change we have to look at our own spending habits and who we vote for (if we vote) and stop blaming people for doing their job.

I'm an engineer, I have worked for corporations who have laid my colleagues off. I have been threatened that my job would be outsourced. I don't think what Broadcom did was cool, but we can't all sit here an whine about Broadcom being dicks while were also gleefully watching our 401k (which Broadcom is probably a part of in some small part) go up in value. not trying to rant at you as Im sure you see this contradiction

Re:Amoral?

[EMG at MU]

I think ideally that's what the government is for. I don't know if you are American or not, because it is laughable to think that the American government would punish "bad" corporations if anyone could even agree on what that means. The American government exists to preserve corporations. Why do you think they got the bailout.

And yeah the 401k isn't terrible. I have one, I like it and I decide generally where the investment goes. However most people dont look at their 401k, and usually just use the default fund, which is usually a broad based fund chasing the top stocks. AAPL is part of most people's 401k and most public retirement funds.

Re:Amoral?

[couchslug]

The flip side is employees have no moral obligation to their employer. My employer owes me nothing not spelt out in law, and I'm very aware I don't owe them more than that either. That frees me to behave in any legal way useful to me, no matter how dishonest.

Fuck me? Less if I fuck you first. :-)

I'm highly motivated to do well for a loyal employer, but cheerfully ruthless towards the other sort.

Labor and management are inherently opponents unless they work (together) to come to some different arrangement.

Re:Amoral?

[Xest]

"Companies are amoral. Period. The people running the company have to do what will produce the most shareholder value."

But how is that defined, is there some court ruling in US history that value is defined purely as money?

Value could equally arbitrarily defined as reputation, and if a company is more responsible then it's going to increase the reputation of shareholders thereby giving them value.

I don't know how fucked up the US is on this issue but it strikes me that value is a rather arbitrary thing, people place different value in different things, it simply seems that the term value has been hijacked to mean "money" and nothing else.

It may well be that most shareholders view value as financial payback (let's be honest, they do), but if a corporation has it's mission statement as "Our number one goal is to provide shareholders value by increasing their reputation by allowing them to invest in our company which aims to be socially responsible" then could shareholders really complain that the management team wasn't providing value when the company isn't being horrible to it's employees to turn a little more profit?

Renesas Mobile

[Guppy]

Prior to the Broadcom's announcement, it seems that, back in June, Renesas announced it was shutting down it's Renesas Mobile division (which appears to be the entity that Broadcom is purchasing). Given that several months have elapsed, one has to wonder how many engineers might have already jumped ship.

Then again, it is possible Broadcom might have made the purchase just to get the Renesas IP and LTE chipset (which supposedly is ready to go), but that doesn't seem consistent with firing their own internal engineering staff.

Re:Renesas Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

...it is possible Broadcom might have made the purchase just to get the Renesas IP and LTE chipset (which supposedly is ready to go), but that doesn't seem consistent with firing their own internal engineering staff.

Why isn't that consistent? Suppose your own staff has been working to try to get a new project out the door, but failing. The upper managment decides to buy some company that has a working version.

Do you keep both groups around?

I don't know about the engineers in your company, but many engineers tend to be very NIH (not invented here), and given some potentially difficulties that are inherent in merging staff from different companies, sometimes companies just cut the cord and can the internal engineering staff that didn't produce. It's probably factored in that some engineers will leave before/during/after a corporate buyout, but I'm sure they are doing their best to lock-in the key personnel (or they'd be idiots).

It ain't fair, but life is rarely fair... At least on the surface, it appears consistent, though...

Re:Renesas Mobile

[Guppy]

Why isn't that consistent? Suppose your own staff has been working to try to get a new project out the door, but failing. The upper managment decides to buy some company that has a working version.

Do you keep both groups around?

I apologize if my writing was ambiguous. What I was speculating on, is that if all the decent engineers from Renesas have already left (in the three-month interval since the previously announced shutdown), then Broadcom would be left buying IP plus an empty building. So either Renesas has managed to retain its engineers, or Broadcom has no clue and is going to have no engineering team to support their new product.

Re:Renesas Mobile

[jhol13]

There are layoffs in the "remains of the Renesas" too, just now.

Broadcom had bought some other company whose name I cannot remember to do the LTE but found out that by buying Renesas Mobile they can get LTE faster. For example Renesas Mobile could demonstrate 300Mbit data link. Perhaps first in the world?

The layoffs mentioned in the article seems to be in the "old" LTE team.

Re:Renesas Mobile

[YoopDaDum]

No, they will keep the Renesas team I believe as they need them. And the people they're laying off were recently (3 years ago, around October 2010) acquired. In short, historically Broadcom had its own 2G and 3G with associated engineers. When they looked at LTE, instead of developing the technology in-house they acquired a start-up called Beceem. Beceem was doing WiMAX successfully, and as everyone doing WiMAX were in the process of switching to LTE and had started announcing they were on it.

Three years later and Broadcom had no working LTE. Even Intel, who started announcing its first LTE chip in 2011, is starting to show hardware 2 years later. It's likely Broadcom management is not happy at all about the situation, and in the end what's happening here is that they're sacking the Beceem team to replace it with the Renesas LTE team. As they make a point of saying they only acquired the LTE assets of Renesas, they may keep the historical Broadcom 2G/3G people. I'm only guessing from public info here, YMMV.

Now I'm NOT laying the blame on the Beceem guys here. Integration in a bigger company can be complicated, with lots of turf wars. It's very possible that the in-house Broadcom 2G/3G team had their own in-house plans to develop LTE (skunk-work style maybe) and didn't see the Broadcom acquisition in a good light. As LTE needs to be integrated with 2G/3G you need some good cooperation between the teams. It's also possible that some key Beceem guys were not happy and left, leaving the rest in trouble. They could have over promised too. What I mean is that there are many ways to fail in such an acquisition, I don't know what happens and can't and won't lay the blame on anyone. I'm just trying to clarify the situation a bit on what happened.

Now the fact that it is said that only Renesas LTE is interesting. Renesas had a full 2G/3G/LTE system as far as I know. Are they cutting the 2G/3G out to keep their own to please the internal guys? How easy/fast such surgery will be? We're not at the end of the story...

Re:Renesas Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure being fair about it is working into this at all.

I see a company that just said 'we dont know what we are doing' then bought someone else. Who may or may not have a working design. This purchase may have also been to build up an ip portfolio to go after others in the market (specifically qualcomm, ti, alcatel, nokia/ms, and motorola/google).

When they do not get any traction on sales you can bet the rest of the engineers will go. I see broadcom becoming predatory in the ip arena.

Re:Renesas Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most accurate and informative post on the thread regarding Broadcom's previous WiMAX/LTE strategies. Shame it's buried under a bunch of tangential posts about the US being evil for not having more worker protection, etc.

Skynet is complete

[samjam]

Skynet is complete - you have made your chains now go and wear them somewhere else.

Bigger than reported

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I hear through the grapevine, this goes beyond the LTE and modem design teams. Layoffs are happening in many more departments.

Re:Bigger than reported

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, at my site about 10% were let go, none of them in LTE or modem. It looks like corporate just made a blanket requirement that 10% of the workforce be riffed.

Re:Bigger than reported

[Anonymous Coward]

Which site do you work at?

Firing someone like that is illegal

[alostpacket]

Firing someone before their benefits vest would be wrongful termination and (surprise) not be good for shareholder value. Look up ERISA. What they can (an often do) offer is to give some incentive for the employee to voluntarily retire early.

Re:Amoral?...Atlas Flushed

[Bob_Who]

In John Galt's hidden mountain paradise, I'm sure there were people to clean the toilets - and I'll bet they were treated a lot better than Broadcom's employees...

Right. They were treated more like the stuff swirling down in the Coriolis effect - flushing down the toilet.

Engineers may be Broadcom's bread and butter, but all lunch will find its way down the drain.

Corporations eat people like food. Its not personal, and the food source is irrelevant. The indifference to individual human beings stems from the fact that corporations are not people, they are an organization of hierarchical power...like the Donner Party.

Soylent Green is people. We should look twice before we chew and spit out other human beings, no matter how legitimate or profitable our sociopathic "corporate" behavior seems.

They totally just pulled an EA

[Anonymous Coward]

Electronic Arts does this every time they buy a new company. I don't get why Broadcom decided to emulate them, it isn't good for morale or as a business practice.

CEO

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the bonus will be put to good use...

Billionaire sought secret lair for sex, drugs, complaint says

Flush with wealth from Broadcom Corp.'s 1998 public stock offering, computer chip magnate Henry T. Nicholas III made a few additions to his equestrian estate in Laguna Hills: hidden doors and secret levers, an underground grotto, tunnels and a 2,000-square-foot sports bar he called "Nick's Cafe."

But there was more, according to a claim made in court documents: plans for a "secret and convenient lair" with hidden entries for Nicholas to indulge his "manic obsession with prostitutes" and "addiction to cocaine and Ecstasy."

I don't see it posted

[Sponge Bath]

I fully expected a NO CARRIER joke.
Too soon?

Re:I don't see it posted

[chromas]

The modem was laid off.

I Work For Broadcom

[Anonymous Coward]

And I can confirm the layoffs. And we are still hiring overseas. In numbers.

broadcom layoffs calculation

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see:

$150k per employee (comp = income )
=> 6 employees per million.
6 X 45 = 270 employees..... TOTAL ...

Re:Amoral?...Atlas Flushed

[EMG at MU]

I don't think that anyone sees the point. The corporate behavior doesn't seem legitimate. It is legitimate. It is law. It is how corporations have operated for over 100 years. It's the american way. We're all part of it.

We can't change something we are all perpetuating.