Sunday, September 23rd 2007

Intel to Possibly Eliminate 10% of IT Staff for Efficiency

According to a report on Computerworld, Intel is considering laying off about 10% of its IT staff. Intel has 5,000 IT staff, out of a total 90,000 people on Intel's payroll. The lay-offs would be to make Intel "agile and efficient". A fair chunk of the staff would likely be re-deployed, rather than fired.Source: The Inquirer
Add your own comment

14 Comments on Intel to Possibly Eliminate 10% of IT Staff for Efficiency

#1
jocksteeluk
you can tell this is more about saving money than it is about staff efficiency, rather than cutting the core workforce which would no doubt lead to some of the staff being overworked why not cut a few managers positions and save the money that way?
Posted on Reply
#2
niko084
by: jocksteeluk
you can tell this is more about saving money than it is about staff efficiency, rather than cutting the core workforce which would no doubt lead to some of the staff being overworked why not cut a few managers positions and save the money that way?
Middle management crap...

Overpaid/under worked

I want that job... Then I can do my hobbies while I get paid...
Posted on Reply
#3
ghost101
by: jocksteeluk
you can tell this is more about saving money than it is about staff efficiency, rather than cutting the core workforce which would no doubt lead to some of the staff being overworked why not cut a few managers positions and save the money that way?
Who says managers arent being made redundant. If you cut 4900 employees, thats about a 100 managers they dont need.

Whats this crap always against managers. Believe it or not, managers are always needed and these businesses know a hell of a lot more about running a business than you. Especially a larege corporation like Intel who will run a dozen different models on what would happen to costs if they implement a dozen different strategies..

Also, saving money = becoming more efficient. Who on earth told you otherwise?
Posted on Reply
#4
TheGuruStud
by: ghost101
Who says managers arent being made redundant. If you cut 4900 employees, thats about a 100 managers they dont need.

Whats this crap always against managers. Believe it or not, managers are always needed and these businesses know a hell of a lot more about running a business than you. Especially a larege corporation like Intel who will run a dozen different models on what would happen to costs if they implement a dozen different strategies..

Also, saving money = becoming more efficient. Who on earth told you otherwise?
The problem is that in general, managers are known to be idiots. They have a fundamental lack of knowledge about their job (maybe completely in life), no foresight, no creativity, no manners, etc. They didn't get the job b/c they're good or how hard they've worked, but b/c they know someone and they kissed a lot of butt.
Yeahhhhhhhh, I can't say I feel sorry for a high paid moron.

And about their numbers; there can easily be too many managers. If an employee has more than one manager telling them what do and especially if the instructions are conflicting, you're gonna have a problem. There shouldn't be overlap in their positions, but it seems there always is.

I currently work at an apartment complex. The regional manger is pointless. She takes away decisions that should be made by the director of the property or even lower in the staff. She doesn't consult anyone about them. The decisions are counter-productive and always expensive mistakes. She can't keep her info. straight between the branches and literally wastes money left and right on things that are useless (she buys stuff b/c it's pretty, although no one agrees and a lot it isn't even visible).
So, she gets paid to lose the company money, make us look bad (b/c she will blame it all on us when stuff doesn't work out), anger the employees, come into work late and leave early (b/c she's not doing squat), and fly around to all of the branches and mess them up as well (which isn't cheap either).
Our property director is more than competent, but she can't exercise her knowledge or do much of anything with a crazy middle-man manager. That's not even to mention corporate, which have their heads up their asses and really cause problems.

Yes, in conclusion, people hate managers. Get the fudge over it.
Posted on Reply
#5
DRDNA
easy come easy go...the new America;)
Posted on Reply
#6
zekrahminator
McLovin
Gurustud: please watch your language in the future.
Posted on Reply
#7
TheGuruStud
by: zekrahminator
Gurustud: please watch your language in the future.
sorry, I get a tad passionate. :banghead:

BTW, I think the intel bashing was justified.
Posted on Reply
#8
zekrahminator
McLovin
'Tis okay, I was just warning you for the future, no harm done :).
Posted on Reply
#9
Helvetica
I think some of you guys have seen Office Space too many times. Sure we could all do with less Lumbergs, but a business's primary objective is to make money - and intel is definately not a non-profit organization (thank god).
Posted on Reply
#10
magibeg
My personal experience is that in a lot of cases managers have a fundamental lack of knowledge when it comes to practical application. This applies especially with fairly new ones. As far as i'm concerned most managers should start off as lower level employees rather then be hired straight up as manager. The problem is that they get out of touch with what the employees are actually doing.
Posted on Reply
#11
Ketxxx
Heedless Psychic
I have to say for every job I have had, managers know jack shit, and they have literally sat around all day with their thumb up their arse and tried critising me for "not working fast enough". Dicks.
Posted on Reply
#12
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
micromanagement is the downfall of society.
Posted on Reply
#13
lemonadesoda
by: TheGuruStud
The problem is that in general, managers are known to be idiots. They have a fundamental lack of knowledge about their job...
NO COMPANY wants to hire idiots as managers, neither do shareholders want them.

The problem lies in promotion. There are management positions that need to be filled, and not enough good managers available for hire. So the positions get filled with idiot workers.

Where is the problem? "Managers" or idiot workers pretending to be "managers"?
Posted on Reply
#14

the military loves to have stupid people in charge. the problem is that say, an engineer were to be promoted. in theory, he could then end up co-ordinating between other engineers, and the flight crew, or perhaps the gunnery department. engineers don't need to know jack all about flying a jet, so when the officer handling the pilots tells him that the controls need to be set a certain way, he will do it. the problem being that he doesn't understand it. the guy getting the instructions probably repaired leaky pipes and oiled the engines once a month. engineers on flight crew don't get promoted, mostly because they work too hard and it would lead to too much supervision with five guys actually working, so this guy getting the instructions for the aircraft might as well be adjusting the throttles on spaghetti for all it's worth. managers are simply expected to be able to handle a variety of employees, even though they may only have experience in one of those positions, or none at all.
Add your own comment