The Unofficial Intel Blog

Poking the beehive with a stick

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Damn You Josh Bancroft!

The sort of idea you posted here should belong to ME!

But since it doesn't, I'm gonna poke a hole in it. Imagine you have a huge sock drawer, but that is just the start. There are other drawers with winter clothes and clothes made of Cat5 cable in an immense dresser. There are ALL kinds of clothes in there, some you bought when you were a bit more fit than you are now. Some are handme-downs, some you picked up by accident after a few too many drinks at a party. Some were left by guests at your house after a few too many drinks at your party.

Then the wife says, "Hey, we have a new baby and all the assorted paraphenalia so clean out that stuff. Some of those shirts haven't gotten you laid since 1996. Get rid of 10%".

So the first step is to think, can I put this bowling shirt on ebay? Then you throw out all the stuff with big, obvious holes. Then it gets hard. Do you just throw out 1 out of ten items? Do you sort by color? Do you try and create stunning ensembles and discard the rest? Do you systematically go through the pockets of all the pants looking for lost twentie$ hoping you can perhaps buy a new dresser? Surely, formulating a strategy will take time. And there are things you want to keep for sentimental reasons which no one but you values so you have to make numerous deals with other "stakeholders" (read "wife"). Yeah, six months is almost no time at all. You really should have thought about this in advance. Why didn't you? If you had, then it wouldn't have ruined your Saturday. Discard the socks (both of a pair) and underwear when the toes and other extremities start to show.

So yes, a 10% solution is A solution, but not a satisfying one. None are going to be satisfying really, at least until you are through.

So hurry up and get it done. Why aren't you done yet Paul?

10 Comments:

At October 04, 2006 4:22 PM, Blogger Josh Bancroft said...

Heh. Does that mean I scooped the Great Pentrino on an idea? :-)

I agree with what you said - no solution is satisfactory. A lottery layoff would hurt just as many people as a long, protracted, carefully considered one. Just different people.

Assuming that is equal, though, you start to look at things like "what do I want the company to be like when I'm done" (which is better served by taking your time and moving deliberately), and "what impact is having on the people that are going to stay" (minimized by acting quickly, like a lottery).

I don't know the answers. It's one reason I have absolutely zero desire to ever be a people manager... :-)

Hopefully it will be over soon!

 
At October 09, 2006 8:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was I surprised? Yes and no. Given that I'm a high paid white male and have a propensity to speak my mind, I was an easy target to become an "affected employee". Two females on our team were retained; they would admit that I'm more capable at that job. Someone tip the Sacramento Bee. Oh yeah. They might celebrate the slaughtering of the white male.

 
At October 09, 2006 9:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa, are you now saying that women are being retained and men being let go? Boy this is sounding rather sexist. Gee, what ever happened to the lottery thought that this post was based on? The next thing I am going to hear is that Intel is protecting women to the detriment of white men. Are women just supposed to say lay me off so you can keep your job? That is how you sound.

 
At October 09, 2006 1:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, think about this. If they layoff more males, then they get their diversity numbers to increase. :)

 
At October 10, 2006 12:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you blaming me for an observation I made based on actual data? Are you saying there has been no "diversity bonus" paid for technical females? Are you saying our esteemed Patty Murray does not have an all-female staff? Are you saying there is a lawyer alive that would file a complaint on behalf of a high-paid white male? Don't blame me. It is obvious and indeed sexist.

 
At October 10, 2006 11:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you want my honest response to this? Maybe it is a good thing you were "affected". I can't imagine what you are like to work. You clearly have the attitude that women are given preferential treatment. That kind of attitude that you are exhibiting here would seem to me would be hard to mask in the workplace. Your coworkers are your peers and to me, should be judged on their skills, not on their gender. Same as you. I swear, sometimes I think if Intel laid off those people that spent more of their time whining about how unfair life is for them, and racism and every other excuse, they would have gone far beyond the 10%. Really. In this economy, one should be happy to still be employed if you are so fortunate.

 
At October 11, 2006 9:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Women and "under-represented minorities" (URMs) are given preferential treatment. It's an established matter of written policy, not someone's perception. This holds whether or not some may be tempted to unfairly question the credentials of others. In fact, this illustrates the dangers of granting preferences to certain groups. Yes, something does indeed sound sexist and racist. Hint: it's not the white male above. (new anonymous poster)

 
At October 19, 2006 8:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree w/ the URM's getting preferential treatment. I believe it's a key reason we became over staffed. In '05, I had plan reqs that I tried to fill. I was told early/mid-way through the year we were overstaffed because other groups had hired outside of plan and I couldn't fill my reqs. 1-2 weeks later, I was told I could hire women/URM's and fill my reqs. On my second req., I had to pass up a white male (internal candidate) who was a technical leader in our field simply because he didn't fit the profile. We joked he should change his name or get an operation.

Anyways, there was a bias in hiring in '05 but in reality, I haven't heard of a bias in our current actions. The current process they're following is too idiotic to claim a bias or they would have used performance feedback a little more heavy.

 
At October 28, 2006 7:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The current process they're following is too idiotic to claim a bias"

Amen.

 
At November 05, 2007 2:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From TMG, FSM, or the other TLA's used to identify those of us in manufacturing; we're closing F23 Colorado Springs, New Mexico's 8-inch line is shedding 1100 people, F17's future is highly questionable with many old DEC folks already laid off. IFO people getting VSP offers, the planned conversion of Fab 22 to 300mm a distant memory. Yet, Fab 68 is being built in China with 1,500 jobs (at least). To build chipsets. That we could build here in a fully depreciated 200mm line easy. Am I missing something?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home