Intel ACT 2016 worldwide
Let’s just take a quick look at what happened in 2016.
In April 2016 Intel Corporation informed about their plan to cut 12.000 jobs worldwide (11 percent of its workforce). The cuts will occur in four areas: site closures, buyouts, layoff and project cancellations.
From the article linked:
The Oregonian offered this timeline for cuts in each area:
Site closures: Intel planned to begin site closures on Wednesday and will complete the notification process by April 25. Chief executive Brian Krzanich told workers Tuesday that it’s not closing any manufacturing sites.
Buyouts: Employees will learn by April 25 if they are eligible for a buyout – either through “Enhanced Retirement” for some long-serving employees or through a “Voluntary Separation Program” for others.
Layoffs: Intel will begin laying off workers on April 25 and will complete notification by April 29.
Project cancellations: Intel will notify workers within 60 days if their project is being cancelled or if other structural changes will affect their work.
According to an article of 25.05.2018 on The Oregonian/oregonlive.com, confirmed by many other sources, Intel is under investigations for alleged age discrimination during the layoff of 2015 and 2016. Not a surprise for whoever works in the company, or simply knows the method of Intel Corporation.
Here is a quote from the article:
Federal investigators are looking into age discrimination complaints against Intel, responding to allegations that the company’s layoffs in 2015 and 2016 disproportionately targeted older workers, according to information reviewed by The Oregonian/OregonLive.By Mike Rogoway | The Oregonian/OregonLive
The Wall Street Journal first reported the investigation Friday.
Intel ACT in Germany
The company waited some times before rolling out the ACT in Germany.
In Germany, it was decided to “offer” ISP and VSP packages to the employees the company wanted to separate from.
ISP stands for Involuntary Separation Package.
VSP stands for Voluntary Separation Package.
Both packages, despite the name, require the acceptance of the employee who received the package. In both cases, the employee is requested to sign a mutual agreement cancellation contract.
If he refuses the “offer”, it begins the nightmare for him.
In August 2016 the works council informed the employees involved in the ACT that the company is going to exercise special pressure to force them to sign the separation contract. Because the acceptance of the separation package was too low.
The way the company is trying to force the employees, according to the works council, is to assign them a CAP (Corrective Action Plan) or an IDP (Individual Development Plan).
Here must be considered that a percentage (unknown how many) of the people who are affected by the ACT, including myself, received a performance evaluation of successful.
Therefore the company is going to assign a CAP or an IDP to employees who have successfully worked for the company. It is probably the way the company says thank you.
If you work for Intel, you know a CAP or an IDP, are particularly bad guys. It includes a strict performance tracking (up to daily reporting) and deep micromanagement of the employee.
In its email, the works council informs that they are aware the CAP/IDP will be done in an unfair way which purpose is to have the employee failing his targets. They wrote that the company will assign targets that are impossible to reach, or very generic formulated so that at the end the company can still say the target is missed.
My IDP in 2016
I have been invited for the IDP meeting by manager TM. Exceptionally for this kind of meeting, the meeting was recorded with the agreement of all participants: manager TM, manager BK, and works council member RM.
This is how the meeting went.
My manager informs me that he has some concern about my performances and want to assign me an IDP (Individual Development Plan).
I ask details. What are these cases where he has seen performance issues? When did they happen? What project was affected?
No answer. He wants to move forward as if he answered.
I stick to my questions.
I ask again and again.
I inform him that we cannot move forward to the IDP if he doesn’t answer my questions.
The last answer of manager TM was that he cannot mention any single… Most probably he was going to say case. I didn’t give him the opportunity to finish his sentence.
I left the meeting.
My email to general manager CE
After the IDP meeting, I sent an email to Mrs. CE, general manager (director?) of Intel Deutschland GmbH, and some other of the highest management, including HR director who was responsible for the all thing.
I have put on cc all employees of Munich’s site.
In the email, I blamed the proceeding of manager TM, who assigned a CAP without knowing why (this is what I wrote, in fact, it is clear why). And asked the management to take measures to stop the misbehave.
After a few days the general manager of Intel Deutschland GmbH publically answers as follow:
It is important for me to better understand your situation as I am taking your feedback very seriously.
Thank you for raising your concerns and bringing it to my attention. [..]
As informed by the works council the company is trying to force employees to sign the separation contract, by letting them go through hard micromanagement and performance tracking.
During the ACT the HR director of Intel Deutschland left the company. According to the rumors he didn’t agree with the methods of the company.
In October 2016 there is an Intel’s employees meeting (Betriebsversammlung). There are questions on the correctness of Intel.
The newly appointed HR director of Intel Deutschland, mister BH, informs that there is no correlation between the packages and the CAP/IDP. It is just a coincidence that the CAP/IDP happen now to the ISP employees. CAP/IDP happens!
I inform the audience around me that he lies. Two loyal managers (what will be the world without loyal people?) close to me who have heard ran to refer it to mister BH.
- Beginning of the year 2016, I complained I was assigned a successful rating, but it was categorized in the low range of successful. Because according to my manager at that time the company needed people to be assigned in the low range. Not because my performances were bad, but because they needed someone.
- In August 2016, in the hardest time of ACT, manager OS came to ask me how am I doing (according to his reconstruction of the fact).
Just by chance, as he was there, he also asked about the ACT, if I was going to accept the offer. I answered no.
Just by chance, as he was there, he insisted I have to accept the offer.
The discussion went hot. He left, visibly angry.
I complained about the behaviour of manager OS with his manager RB. I wrote him an email with my complaints. In the email, I described manager OS as an executor of a company that declared war to his employees.
For the reasons mentioned above, that can be summarized in having complained about the miserable misbehave of the company, I’ve been fired in October 2016.