Today, July 15th, 2020 marks the fifth anniversary date for the first Intel Corp. massive layoff of the 21st century. 2015 also represents the year in which Intel Corp. lost its leadership position within the semiconductor industry, due to a continuous wave of operational flops and process-engineering disasters, most of them due to bad management decisions and a rising wave of mistrust between management and employees.
 |
Intel Corp. 2015 Layoff Action
Age Composition of Affected Employees |
Intel Corp. management, under the leadership of CEO Brian Krzanich (BK) focused on lowering the cost of labor by laying off thousands of veteran employees, instead of fixing organizational and technological issues that plagued the company for many years. The company was unable to fix its high volume manufacturing (HVM) problems for chips manufactured in 14nm for longer than five years. The follow-up 10nm production line never matured into commercial viability. This type of phenomenon never happened at Intel Corp. at anytime in the past. Having the benefit of hindsight today, this colossal inability to deliver reliable silicon products, can clearly be attributed to the scarcity of technical and organizational leadership among the remainder of the company engineering workforce, following the 2015 and 2016 massive layoffs.
Laying off more than 16,000 employees, many of them in senior grades with decades of experience under belt, was a very costly business move. Intel Corp. replaced experienced employees with much cheaper and inexperienced workforce. Company executives apparently had a notion that their veteran workforce was nothing but an easily replaceable commodity. The immediate result of the mindless mass layoffs created bad employee morale, lack of trust, led to operational chaos and penalized the company with enormous lack of productivity--a great deal of which still persists inside the company to this day.
In spite of external criticism of his actions, CEO Brian Krzanich continued to prove his leadership incompetence for a few more years of spiraling chaos, during which Intel Corp. lost its credibility as well as its world leadership position as a result of the company's inability to deliver on its promises to its customer base.
Fighting the sinking reality of the semiconductor market slipping away, year after year, Intel Corp. expensive PR campaign to save face, met its eventual limits. Due to ever repeating lack of meaningful operational results, Intel Corp. Board took action and fired BK in June 2018.
To protect INTC stock value, the Board explained the firing of BK with a "Roger Stone style story" utilizing a sexy connotation that was meant to distract public attention from the incompetence of Intel Corp. C-Suite as well as the incompetence of the company Board of Directors itself.
Apparently egomania and greed can never be satisfied. Even after leaving his CEO position with the company, Krazanich himself is under
SEC investigation for insider trading of Intel stock. Regrettably, as we have witnessed over the last decades, how U.S. Government agencies seem to operate more like "paper tigers" than "Rambo". Rich executives can continue to live the high life as long as they keep paying their "high shelf" high hourly rate lawyers.
 |
Ex-Intel CEO Lists Lavish Silicon Valley Compound |
Intel Corp. worst legacy is still lying ahead. In its hasty effort to restructure its workforce the company laid off thousands of older workers, as well as forced many more thousands of senior employees to retire under duress. By doing so, Intel Corp. management violated the civil rights of older workers ("older workers" defined as employees who are 40 year old or older). Such workers are classified by Federal regulations as a "protected class", which requires employers to take specific actions before laying them off.
Specific U.S. Employment Law rules and regulations were set in place to protect employees aged 40+ from discriminatory practices. Most of such protection rules are defined in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, otherwise known as the
ADEA.
Although employers are allowed to lay off older employees, the ADEA specifically requires employers to follow employment practices meant to guarantee that older employees are not to be discriminated against during the whole course of their employment as well as during the hiring and/or firing process.
 |
Janet Dhillon - EEOC Chair
|
Members of PDX-TIE.ORG filed and brought forward substantial evidence that Intel Corp. knowingly violated the ADEA in many ways, during the course of Mr. Brian Krzanich rein as Intel Corp. CEO. Charges written by members of our organization (
PDX-TIE.ORG), submitted and filed with the Federal government Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2016 are in full progress of investigations.
We recently received yet another confirmation that the EEO investigation is still in "active" state. It is already more than 4-1/2 years since our charges have been filed and the clock keeps ticking on the Federal investigation. Amazingly, Janet Dhillon, the Chair of the EEOC, appointed by President Donald Trump in May 2019, testified under oath in a hearing in front of congress:
It is the sad reality that too often, justice delayed is justice denied. Evidence can be misplaced, and memories fade with the passage of time. The opportunity to quickly stop and remedy a discriminatory practice can also be lost – potentially to the detriment of other impacted employees. To ensure quality service, it is critical that private sector charges and federal complaints are handled promptly and fairly – and so we must work to reduce backlogs across all program offices.
Shall we take her for her word? Do words stated under oath inside the halls of the U.S. Congress, have a meaning if not translated into enforcement actions?
One of the advertised policies of the EEOC over the last few years was "working with employers", namely convince employers to police themselves, in matters associated with employees age discrimination in the workplace. In the words of EEOC Chair she is driving the EEOC to pursue a "Litigation Last" policy namely, avoiding law enforcement, seemingly at all costs to the U.S. Government. This type of "soft talk, self policing" methodology has been exercised extensively, by another Federal agency, the FAA. The results of such actions (or lack thereof) turned out to disastrously manifest their outcome in the Boeing 737MAX fiasco.
The result of forfeiting external supervision on large corporations and "letting the dogs guard the hen house" cost the lives of hundreds of innocent people and at the same time pushed the Boeing company to the brink of bankruptcy. There are very serious lessons to be learned from this story. Lack of external supervision and dereliction of duty on the part of Government Oversight, unavoidably leads to a situation where everyone, corporations, clients, employers and employees turn to become big losers.
With the above being said and judging from the "snail's pace" at which justice for older employees affected by the Intel Corp. layoffs is being pursued, many of us may be dead already, before Intel Corp. is brought to justice by the Federal Government. Many of us are older and form the most vulnerable segment of the U.S. population at risk for COVID-19 severe infections and ultimately death.
Clearly, the political and the corporate echelons would rather wait and see us (the "problem" in their view) vanish into oblivion, as more of our members meet their demise. With no proactive actions on the part of the U.S. Congress, and with the EEOC forfeiting their law enforcement actions, dereliction of duty continues to rule the day.
 |
Latest unemployment Trend Charts
(click on image to enlarge)
|
The
latest unemployment data report clearly demonstrates that the U.S. is in the middle of a major economic trough, following the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the circumstances, it is very likely that many workers, particularly those aged 40 and older, will never return to their original jobs. This situation presents employers with the perfect opportunity to "weed out" their most expensive employees, which in most cases are the most senior and experienced, namely "older", replacing them with younger and certainly "cheaper" workers. Past experience demonstrates clearly that commercial corporations that view their workforce as "replaceable" commodity, tend to fail "big time", while business entities that treat their employees as an "asset" tend to flourish. Look at IBM, GE, and of course Intel Corp.
It is important to note that in most companies, older employees serve as de-facto mentors to younger and less experienced employees. The value of mentoring has been proven to be a major contributing factor to the success of business. Clearly, with proper management policies, a good balance of employee diversity is not only required by employment laws--it actually contributes to cohesion of the workforce and increased productivity.
Unfortunately and to detriment of many companies, for the average C-Suite executive, having mostly inexperienced workers onboard, does not seem be an issue of great concern. By the time that the business begins experiencing serial operational failures after getting rid of its experienced workers, the executives have already harvested their mega bonuses and pulled their "golden parachute" cords to pursue "new opportunities"...
During these days when the world is facing a major pandemic, it may be convenient to ignore problems that could have made headlines in the past. However, it is futile to deny the demographic trends in the U.S., which clearly show the working population is getting significantly older.
 |
Workforce-age Group Composition
(click on image to enlarge)
|
OLD at 40 YEARS of Age?
Remember what we said earlier in this article about the ADEA defining older workers as those who are 40+ years of age? Well, if this fact eludes you for one reason or the other, Millennials, namely people who were born between 1980 and 2000 are in the process of entering this class of "older" workers. People who were born in 1980 are already 40 years old! Having the largest representation in the current workforce, Millennials have every reason to be concerned about age discrimination in the work place. Seeing your chances of keeping a well-paying job diminish as you cross the "magic 40" line, could be a nightmare come to life unless corporate greed, with its insatiable appetite for cheapening the cost of labor is met with effective enforcement of laws that have been written to serve the public, as opposed to serving the corporate world.
It is unnerving to think that the U.S. economy can continue to function by the rules of the corporate world with automation and major layoffs producing whopper bonuses to enrich the few individuals sitting in corporate C-Suite roles while denying the actual workers from the ability to maintain sustainable living wages. What are we going to do with people in the 40s, 50s, and 60s who can no longer find a decent-paying job? It is time to recognize that "older" is a relative term and that term applies to every single person throughout their lives. There is no cure for aging unless jumping from a tall bridge is your favorite hobby. One day the other guy is "old" and on the next day you are "the other guy".
Achieving equal rights for women is getting a new life in the political arena, particularly when it involves equal pay for equal labor. However, very few proponents of women's rights acknowledge the fact that "older" women bear much harsher treatment from employers due to age discrimination, than men of similar age. The MeToo movement made remarkable progress to expose and (hopefully) curtail sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Maybe it is time to up the ante, use the momentum and declare the birth of the "Me-Three" (Me-3.00) movement to fight rampant age discrimination for women.
It is an "open secret" that Corporate America is in charge of the country, at least for the last 40 years. We have the "best politicians that money can buy", regardless of their political party affiliation. The current political system is totally fueled by money, which it seems to guzzle at an alarmingly high rate.
Although we currently (2020) have a President who seems to continuously make the wrong choices and then cover up in order to save face, both houses of the U.S. Congress seem to be stuffed with people of similar ego maniacal core. Congress and the U.S Senate are stuffed to the gills with recycled politicians who obey the wills of their donors, as opposed to the wishes of their constituents.
This situation is hard to explain, since most voters do not identify with either the RNC or the DNC propaganda.
Gallup polls conducted frequently over the last few years consistently indicate that there are many more "independent" voters than voters that identify themselves with either "R" or "D". The latest poll conducted during the first week of June indicates that independent voters amount to 40% of the voting population as opposed to 25% Republicans and 31% Democrats.
To the best of my visibility, most people are more motivated to vote "against" a particular political candidate than "for" an alternative candidate. With this type of voters' psychosis, it is no wonder that the whole country is falling apart at the seams and what unifies us as voters are our differences...
While disaffection with both of the major parties has been rampant, attempts at creating a significant third party that could act as a tie-breaker in both houses of Congress have not been successful thus far. The political system is essentially rigged by the current players to prevent newcomers from taking political power from the entrenched establishment. As much as I would like to see a large "Independent Party" taking place in U.S. politics, it is difficult to imagine that such a phenomenon would come to life, absent a major long-term crisis. While the COVID-19 pandemic could potentially extend into a full blown existential crisis, most of the American public still believes that full recovery is a matter of a year or two. Throughout history this type of apathetic shortsightedness has always been the "Achilles Heel" of the plebiscite.
In reality, elected politicians must be "supervised" on a continuous basis. The power of money, concentrated in Washington D.C. lobbying firms, can be defeated if the voting constituents regularly and continuously check their representatives' actions by looking at their day to day, actions and voting records. Congressional representatives ears must be be kept open through continuous stream of messages sent to them by their constituents. In the absence of meaningful communication from their constituents, Congressional Reps attention becomes captive to be grabbed by D.C. lobbyists who's time is well paid to deliver their master's messages.
Calling politicians' bluffs does not need to wait for the next elections cycle. The Internet provides access to most Congressional records and it is too bad that most people do not care to read these records to enlighten themselves.
We all carry responsibility to manage our Reps, since otherwise, the money'ed interests in D.C. remain the only entities that interact with them. While big demonstrations in the streets have a significant "splash factor", such events tend to fizzle quite quickly. Generally, politicians have short attention span. In the absence of continuous follow-up on the cause, our politicians will not change their behavior, since most of them depend on money to retain their seat and the money supply is still concentrated in the hands of the "one-percenters" and the big corporate interests.
Take charge and call on your elected representative today! Tell them what you really care about.
Stay healthy and all the best!
--Dr. Flywheel
References:
