Yes indeed - I beat the shit out of them...

When legal justice was actively being pursued, even tens of million dollar defense, spent on a large law office employing 900 attorneys, actually ended up in a major blowout for their law violating corporate client. As much as it defies popular common beliefs, even little "David" can beat "Goliath" once the facts and relentless persistence were presented to review of the U.S. Federal Court. My fight for seeking justice for myself and potentially 17,000 affected employees was not in vain. Just beware that "Copy Exact" is not necessarily a good doctrine for pursuing successful outcome in the real world. Sometimes you need to be able to "walk on water".

Walking on Water

 

Walking on water, where angels fear to tread

I dream of us marching to the rhythm of a band

The music is thunder, the music of a gale

The wind keeps on blasting and the sky is spitting hail

The chimneys of the sky break open and swell

And the whirlwind is swinging and sounding the bell

The crest of the waves is foaming with pride

They welcome each other with a head-crushing ride

The eye of the storm is conducting the score

It gestures and points the baton to the shore

A platoon of cyclones reacts to the call

They escort the fat lady back to the South Pole

Like all things in life, a peak has been reached

It is time for good nature to return to its creed

The big parade can no longer hold its glory

Time to begin a new chapter of a never-ending story

As if they were walking the plank, right at dawn

The almighty flotilla of breakers is gone

The gold solar ball not a ghost would dare face

Categorically, this was the end of the race

What a show that is was, not a run of the mill

I thank you oh Zeus for the scare and the thrill

Walking on water, keeps my dreams afloat

However I’d rather wake up cheerfully, sailing in a boat!

   

Copyright(c) 2023 by Ron Tsur

The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Issues Legal "Determination" Finding Intel Corp. Systemically Violated Civil Rights of its Older Employees

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

 --Arthur Schopenhauer

 1858 Days and Still Counting

On February 12th, 2021, the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a Determination letter with a legal finding that Intel Corp. systematically violated Civil Rights of its employees. The finding was issued in conjunction with the 2015 layoffs action in which 1,155 employees were permanently laid off, in addition to several hundred additional employees and managers who were forced to accept early retirement.

It took the EEOC, a U.S. Federal law-enforcement agency, more than 5 years (61 months) to issue its Determination Letter to both Intel Corporation and the affected employees, who were laid off in 2015. 

What did the EEOC do during the 1858 days, since a formal complaint against Intel Corporation was officially filed with the EEOC?

The official position of the EEOC is that it is "working with the Employer". What does it mean? A law enforcement agency of the U.S. Government collaborating with a Civil Rights law violator?

Note that according to U.S. Federal law 29 C.F.R. § 1601.6(a). The EEOC field office can request issuance of a Commissioner charge for inquiries that relate to individual or systemic discrimination. A Commissioner also may file a charge without receiving a referral from a field office. 

Are we facing yet another case of "Corporate Welfare" program where a U.S. Government agency is hiding from the public the ability to examine and understand the substantial systemic Civil Rights violations facts of the case? Is this a case where a corporation such as Intel Corp. gets immunity from prosecution or from exposure to public scrutiny, just because of its monetary wealth and Washington D.C. lobbying powers?

Note that the EEOC already found Intel Corp. guilty of multiple violations of the ADEA as evidenced by multiple, official legal determination letters, issued by the EEOC. After more than six years of process, what prevents the EEOC from filing its own law suit against Intel Corp. and by doing so deterring bad actors from further violations, in addition to recouping the cost of litigation from a serial law violator?

The Human Capital Factor

The Intel July 2015 layoff was the first step of a strategy, conceived by then Intel CEO Brian Krzanich (BK), to replace aging employees with younger and much cheaper newcomers. For Intel Corp., this layoff also marked the beginning of a five year spiraling down series of manufacturing failures resulting in the company losing its leading position in the semiconductor industry to multiple competitors.

Less than a year later, (March-April 2016) Intel Corp., upped the ante and laid off additional 12,000 employees, most of them very experienced. In spite of the oddity and timing of these subsequent "reductions in workforce" (RIF) actions, the consequences of the massive layoffs were not immediately apparent at the time that they occurred.

However, in reality, by ridding itself of experienced employees Intel Corp. lost the ability to execute the reliable High Volume Manufacturing processes (HVM), which the company excelled at for many years in the past. Successful execution of HVM is the "make-or-break life blood" of all chip factories (commonly known as FABs).

You can refer to a previously published article on our website for further reference about Intel Corp. strategy for replacing its (older) experienced workforce with younger and cheaper replacements.

See:
Useful diagrams for explaining Intel Corp selection of employees for termination in 2015 and 2016 

Although the EEOC in its official capacity is charged with monitoring for employers' discriminatory behavior on a continuous basis, the EEOC claims that it was not aware of the employee discrimination cases until one of Intel Corp. employees, who were affected by the layoffs, presented the Commission with indisputable evidence of systemic wrongdoing.

Ron Tsur delivering presentation at Intel technical conference
during Summer 2015

The individual who brought the EEOC's attention to Intel Corp. systemic law violations is Ron Tsur, who prior to being laid off by Intel Corp., held the position of Principal Software Architect for Intel Corp. Electrical Validation Enabling Department.

Note that although Mr. Tsur's case is highlighted here in greater detail, his age discrimination case and the facts that support the legal case charges against Intel Corp. represents a group of an estimated 2000 similar cases.

Mr. Tsur case is an exception only from the perspective that his pursuit of bringing Intel Corp. to justice took place in the open since 2015 and endured relentlessly, through the last seven years.

***

April 30, 2021 UPDATE

"The Register" news outlet published an online article covering Mr. Tsur recent Federal Court lawsuit filing.
(See: Intel laid me off for being too old, engineer claims in lawsuit).

 ***

Prior to his inclusion in the July 2015 mass layoff, Mr. Tsur worked at a corporate-level department with responsibility for validating, qualifying and certifying leading-edge (newly designed R&D prototype) computer chips, during the critical preliminary evaluation phase, preceding the silicon designs move into High Volume Manufacturing (HVM) at Intel Corp. FABs.

Note that HVM process execution with terrible failure rate is exactly what Intel Corp. is experiencing for the last six years.

Is there a correlation between the 2015 layoffs of approximately 1200 experienced employees, the "follow on" layoff of 12,000 employees in 2016, and the subsequent Intel Corp. consistent series of manufacturing blunders? Coincidence?

Back in mid 2015, Mr. Tsur and his supervisors were shocked at the company HR decision to lay-off Mr. Tsur from his job as part of the mass layoff. To Mr. Tsur and his management chain, the layoff notice seemed at first as an "administrative error". Nothing made much sense in the way that the company presented either the reasons for the layoffs or the way in which employees were selected for "termination".

More specifically, Intel Corp. HR mandated layoff edict was particularly puzzling to both Mr. Tsur and his management chain. This is to a great extent because Mr. Tsur at the time, led a major strategic effort to develop advanced testing and analysis methods that would enable the company to focus on identifying the root cause of the endlessly repeating new chip failures, found during internal validation and testing of the (then) new 14nm silicon manufacturing process.

During 2014 and 2015, Mr. Tsur, being the principal Systems Software Architect within the Intel Corporation Electrical Validation Tools and Enabling department, was leading, defining, architecting and prototyping, modern data analysis solutions that were aimed at significantly upgrading the capabilities of  Intel Corp. (outdated, 20th Century legacy) chip  electrical test methodologies. Mr. Tsur and his collaborators focused among other novel approaches, on the collection of real-time electrical behavioral data, directly from Intel Corporation customer's (OEM) product prototypes, using "big data" analysis. Other advanced techniques included deploying machine learning tools to establish cause/effect relationship, by using advanced "semantics-based" data collection methods.

The goal of Mr. Tsur's leading initiative was to utilize high volume, data-driven, testing and rapid failure analysis methodologies, taking advantage of recent 21st Century data collection and analysis capabilities. This approach was among other things, focused towards eliminating tens of thousands of man-hours that were otherwise, spent on manual fact finding and (slow) manual analysis. Mr. Tsur lead initiative was directed at increasing the efficiency of the electrical validation process, thereby saving the company tens of million dollars each year in engineering work hours. Mr. Tsur also lead the development of a "unified, semantics-rich" hierarchical-data framework, aimed at removal of ambiguities and uncertainties from the manufacturing-tests data sets. This capability was a key component for enabling quick turn-around of chip manufacturing process corrections.

Mr. Tsur did not operate in vacuum, his R&D "path finding" projects were initiated after it became apparent to Intel Corporation Electrical validation Department staff (in 2014), that the new 14nm and 10nm based silicon designs presented significantly new reliability testing and manufacturing challenges, necessitating radically new methodologies and novel problem solving approach.

Intel Corp. High Volume Manufacturing (HVM) Problems Connection to the Human Capital Factor

As mentioned above, immediately prior to his inclusion in the 2015 mass layoff, Mr. Tsur's department at Intel Corp. was focused at enabling the company to effectively identify the possible nature and root cause of the HVM problems that plagued the 14nm and upcoming 10nm manufacturing processes.

Note that electrical validation work is routinely conducted during the R&D and early manufacturing phases of every company new silicon product, not only at Intel Corporation. However, Intel Corporation (quite smartly) provided early prototype samples of future chip products to its network of OEM customers, such as Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Etc., as "engineering Samples", subject to a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Early exposure to even partially functional new chips, is very helpful policy for enabling the OEM design engineers with a "head start" to better evaluate and understand new product features, adopt better system integration doctrines and thereby cut down market readiness of their final consumer products.

However, in early 2014, significant "Head-Start" failures of silicon engineering samples produced an alarming warning signal with OEMs who began to seriously suspecting Intel Corp. ability to deliver promised new silicon chips for OEM new line of products, using the 14nm silicon manufacturing process.

Today, after more than seven years of repeating HVM manufacturing blunders, this multi-year series of failures is already a well established historic fact. Intel Corp. excuses for its inability to overcome its production quality problems, continued  for long time to be presented as "technical in nature". The corporate PR machine was apparently, operating at full steam, hiding the human factors associated with Intel Corp. failure to deliver reliable silicon chips to its customers. 

In particular, the long-term effects that the 2015 and 2016 massive employee layoffs inflicted on Intel Corp. internal organization and its ability to execute and produce were either ignored or shoved under the carpet, in order to keep company stock and bond investors at bay.

Intel Corp. Executives Ulterior Motives

In spite of his management chain's protests to the HR department, highlighting the potential damage caused by ridding Mr. Tsur expertise from the company, the layoff process inertia dominated the scene and subsequently, Mr. Tsur was laid off in mid-July 2015, alongside approx. 1200 of his peers.

It is not very clear if Intel Corporation actually gained a lot by firing 1155 of its experienced employees during July 2015. Today it is quite apparent that Intel Corp. executive management in 2015, did not consider their own experienced employees, as tangible assets.

It has become apparent that  CEO Brian Krazanich and his executive team viewed all employees as an easily replaceable "commodity". "Shopping for Employees" was viewed, not unlike shopping for toilette paper or paper clips, Krzanich and his cronies, apparently believed that that junior candidates and lowest bidders could successfully displace their mature "human capital". Highly experienced employees no longer counted as the core "asset" of the company. This represented a major departure from the heydays of Intel Corporation, under the leadership of its late Co-founder, Dr. Andrew Grove, who expressed on many occasions that Intel Employees are the Principal Asset of the company.

As Dr.Ian Cutress recently wrote on his popular AnandTech blog:

ex-Intel engineers have a long line of accolades at the company, having worked on and built the fundamental technologies that power Intel today. The exact reasons why they left Intel in the first place are varied, with some peers are keen to cite brain drain during CEO Brian Krzanich’s tenure

Kraznich and his top executives zealot efforts to drive the company stock to a higher value by ridding the company from a large number of older employees, were apparently never properly scrutinized for possible negative consequences, by the company board of directors. Perhaps, they were even encouraged by the Board. For reasons that have never been explained by Intel Corporation the permanent layoff of Mr. Tsur and many of his colleagues was never given a fair HR legal review or a chance of appeal, as required  by documented HR procedures. The Intel Employee Handbook, specifically spells the right of any employee to question, rebuttal and appeal management decisions, including employment termination, via formal hearing, known as "Open Door". Intel Corporation violated its own HR "checks and balances" procedures by blocking all venues for Mr. Tsur and his management chain to represent their facts, in support of reversing Mr. Tsur's layoff. Intel Corp. executive management was apparently not interested in what is good for the company's future, as much as what is good for getting their bonuses, due to expected favorable stock market reaction to the massive layoffs.

Although "Open Door" appeals hearings during 2015, were openly well documented in the company's HR Employee Handbook, the HR department blatantly violated its own rules. Since the Intel HR Employee Handbook is part of the employment contract between the company and its employees, in addition to issues of State and Federal Civil Rights violations, a violation of private sector employment terms, also constitutes breach of contract.

In 2015, Mr. Tsur was informed by an HR Legal Investigator that direct orders from Intel Corp. CEO and its executive management committee, (internally known as MCM) instructed the HR Legal department to block any such investigation or hearing at the very moment that selected employees were issued the 30 day termination notice.

Curiously, some other employees, younger than Mr. Tsur, were granted "open Door" hearings and some of them, actually received a reversal of their layoff order. Others were given a chance to convert their involuntary layoff into forced (involuntary) "early retirement", in return for some perks, conditioned on keeping the terms of their separation, silent and hidden from public exposure.

Age Discrimination Statistical Evidence

While still serving at the Jones Farm campus of Intel Corporation in Hillsboro, Oregon, after receiving his a 30 day termination notice prior to his layoff in July 2015, Mr. Tsur (62 years old at the time) who among other things, is also an experienced data scientist, examined the content of the 2015 layoffs report that was issue to him along with 1200 other employees, as part of their layoff notice.

[Note: the referenced report is a Federally mandated document, known as OWBPA, specifying the company job categories, and the ages of employees selected for layoff, vs. those who were excluded from layoff]

Upon scrutiny of the facts, Mr. Tsur discovered from his data analysis of the OBWBPA report, a very conspicuous correlation between an affected (selected to be laid off) employee age and the probability of such employee to be laid off.

Mr. Tsur's conclusions regarding the apparent age discrimination "disparate impact" present in the 2015 layoffs, were independently affirmed a few weeks later, when the Oregonian news outlet ran an independent analysis of the OWBPA Report. The OregonianLive, published an article, written by Mike Rogoway, highlighting the overwhelming age-related correlation manifested at the core of the 2015 layoffs, as demonstrated in the chart below.

 

Mr. Tsur was 62 years old at the time of his layoff, accordingly and based on the above OregonianLive published chart, it is apparent that Mr. Tsur chances of being selected for layoff were more than four times (4x) higher than an employee who is under 40 and six times (6x) higher than employees 30 year old or younger. Note that Federal and State employment laws, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), were written by the U.S. Congress, specifically, to protect employees of age 40+ or older from age discrimination.

 

Mr. Tsur concluded that Intel Corp. violated the civil rights of a large number of employees who were 40 years old or older. Mr. Tsur was one among the many whose Civil Rights were trampled upon during the July 2015 layoff.

 

Establishing that his employment termination was in fact unlawful, for multiple reasons, Mr. Tsur refused to accept the separation agreement that Intel Corp. (euphemistically name) "People Movement" department, tried to coerce him to sign. Mr. Tsur was not going to give up his rights for pittance, particularly since he knew very well that his employment termination was not only unjustified but unlawful too.

 

The Whistleblower Case

 

After spending a few months of investigating the peculiar ways in which Intel Corp. presented the 2015 layoff in its communications to company employees and the company's PR statements, Mr. Tsur filed an age discrimination complaint with Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) and concurrently with the Federal Government Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

 

[Note: Oregon BOLI (see: FEPA) acted as a paid subcontractor to the EEOC for registering and filing civil rights and discrimination complaints of employees charging their employers with unlawful conduct. Mr. Tsur's complaint was co-filed with BOLI and the EEOC on January 12th, 2016. This filing was officially recorded longer than six years ago.]

 

As a Whistleblower, Mr. Tsur also provided Oregon BOLI and the EEOC with information indicating that Intel Corp. systematically violated both State and Federal laws, meant to protect employees from age discrimination in employment practices.

The EEOC claims that the average time it takes to investigate and resolve a discrimination charge was about 10 months in 2015.

Fiction vs. Reality

 

During the next 1,858 days, Mr. Tsur kept providing the EEOC with ample evidence of employment discrimination, legal arguments and first-person sworn witness testimonies, including sworn testimony affidavits from his former supervisors at Intel Corp. Additional testimonies were collected from other company managers and ex-employees. Mr. Tsur expected the EEOC to quickly determine the merit of his charges, since these charges were significantly substantiated and supported with clear evidence. Apparently, Intel Corp. attorneys used every trick in the book to slow down the EEOC investigation deceive the investigators, and keep the company violation facts hidden from the public.

 

Ageism appears to be a particularly rampant phenomena in the High Tech economic sector

 

besides Intel Corp. the rampant age discrimination practices were revealed to the public through recent law suits brought against Google, IBM, Apple and many other "high tech" companies. Without exception, these companies reward their executives with  enormous stock-based bonuses. Older workers are no longer viewed as the backbone "human capital" of the company, in spite of their extensive knowledge and experience. To company executives, company business longevity seems secondary to their personal pocketbook calculations. As recently, evidenced, a significant number of high tech companies are facing severe shortages of experienced workforce, mostly due to company executives egotistical abuse of their employees in the past.

 

April 30, 2021 UPDATE:  "The Register" news outlet published an online article covering Mr. Tsur recent Federal Court lawsuit filing. (See: Intel laid me off for being too old, engineer claims in lawsuit).

 

Mr. Tsur expressed that he is hoping that an open court trial will expose to the public, the rampant age discrimination that Intel Corp. practiced over a long period of time, while the company never faced any substantial consequences for its law violations.

 

Mr. Tsur showed EEOC investigators evidence of systemic Civil Rights violations exercised by Intel Corp. that affected thousands of employees. This evidence initiated the EEOC investigation of the company and under suspicion of shady HR practices. The EEOC investigation began as early as 2016, after Mr. Tsur provided the EEOC with significant facts about the ADEA violations systemic case.

 

However, as the years went by, without visible action on the part of the Federal agency, Mr. Tsur began sensing that he is being treated as an "enemy of the state" by the Federal bureaucracy, for his persistence of seeking justice for himself and his peers. This is the typical sad reality that most "whistleblowers" are facing from our current Government, legal and corporate systems.

 

By all standards, the unusually long record of 1,858 days to process the evidence that Mr. Tsur presented to the EEOC, does not cast favorable light on the performance of the EEOC and its bureaucracy, as being effective in performing its role as the Civil Rights employment law enforcement agency of the U.S. Federal Government.

 

In spite of enduring significant personal sacrifices over many years of being "black listed" by employers in the high-tech industry, due to his public confrontation of Intel Corporation mistreatment of its employees, Mr. Tsur persisted relentlessly to drive the EEOC to come up with case Determination that found Intel Corporation in violation of its older employees Civil Rights on February 12 2021.

(See: https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2019/12/age-discrimination-intel-investigation-drags-on-for-years-highlighting-legal-pitfalls.html).

 

After five years and one month (61 months, or 1858 days to be exact). The EEOC finally issued, a "Determination Letter" stating that Intel Corp. violated the age discrimination provisions of Title-VII and the ADEA afforded to employees of age 40+.

The Oregonian news organization that has been following up on Intel Corp. mass layoffs since 2015, recently published an article covering the current state of this case. See: https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2021/02/intel-discriminated-against-eight-older-workers-in-2015-layoffs-eeoc-finds.html

 

Unfortunately, even the Oregonian article only scratches the surface of the Intel Corp. employment discrimination case. It is very likely that a public trial will be the only avenue to expose the full extent of Intel Corp. unlawful employment practices while also highlighting how both the State and Federal agencies that are in charge of employment law enforcement in our country seem to be incompetent and are systemically operating in a mode, seemingly rigged to fail employee plaintiffs attempts to achieve justice. 

 

Considering the ADEA, that last major law governing protection of employee civil rights in the U.S. was written in 1967 and all attempts to revise this law were systematically quashed by lobbying campaigns financed by large corporations. 

 

The U.S. Congress lack of remedial legislative action to update existing employment related laws to match today's job market realities, is also a major dereliction of duty, contributing to unabated and long enduring age discrimination phenomena.

Important Notes

Recently, key investor Three Point LLC warned Intel Corp. and threatened to begin installing new members on Intel’s board if the company didn’t take steps to address its “human capital management issue” and manufacturing delays.

As CRN reported on May 20, 2021, Intel top management behavior created serious credibility and trust issues with company shareholders:

Intel Shareholders Reject Executive Pay Plan

 

Let it be clear on this point: corporations are not people and we have no animosity towards Intel Corp. as a (non-person) business entity. On the other hand, employees and company executive officers, are people. People make mistakes and even commit crimes and atrocities that have consequences. When operating within the context of for-profit business corporations, company managers and executive officers are responsible for their own individual actions; however, in addition to that, the corporation caries liability for its managers and executives actions.

 

The layoff of thousands of experienced employees, some of them at key positions (like Mr. Tsur who had direct expertise in monitoring and systemically analyzing the 14nm FAB failures), robbed the company of valuable human assets. Due to this mass employees departure, "human capital" with pertinent long-term expertise of system knowledge and problem solving was permanently lost to the detriment of Intel Corp., affecting the company's abilities to execute most of its missions.

 

"1300 Thieves"

 

Very unwisely and perhaps also illegally, CEO Krzanich ordered that the HR department mark the personal record of each laid off employee with a "special code", barring all laid off employees from being rehired by Intel Corp. for life... This move ensured that the "human capital loss" would become permanent!

 

IT employees who worked at the company at the time testified that the BK ordered "special code" to be inserted into personnel files of all employees who were laid off in July of 2015 to guarantee that no such employee will be ever rehired by the company. The IT department actually implemented the executive order by marking all 1155 employees as "thieves". This ensured that the HR department will be "signaled" each time that a hiring manager attempts to hire an employee that was included in the 2015 layoff, and subsequently, block the potential employee re-hiring means of "automatic decree"...

 

Secretly "profiling" employees and attributing unproven criminal charge on their personnel record is a serious offense. This specific allegation was brought to the attention of the EEOC investigators and publicized on our web site in 2019 (see: https://www.pdx-tie.org/2019/06/intel-corp-marked-employees-as-thieves.html). 

 

We have no notion if the EEOC ever investigated the facts behind this specific charge and how the EEOC is treating the "profiling" phenomenon from a legal perspective. If the agency did not investigate the specific facts associated with the above mentioned "employee profiling", perhaps the EEOC agency itself becomes complicit in the violation.

 

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Abraham Lincoln

 

The evidence of Intel manufacturing systems failures beginning immediately following the mid-year 2015 layoffs is indisputable. For those of us who spent our careers in the semiconductor industry, Intel executives' false moves, to coverup its crumbling manufacturing capacity, as a "technical issue" seem rather pathetic. 

 

Instead of recognizing the devastation of the company internal culture, following the 2015/2016 mass layoffs as root cause, they resorted to cheap hiring practices and bad external acquisitions, all seemingly frivolous actions, lacking business sense and allowing Intel competitors to displace Intel from its leadership position in the semiconductor industry.

 

Even after disgraced CEO krzanich was fired from his position and replaced by another CEO, the loss of "experienced human capital" was devastating. Intel Corp.was not able to make up any gains in execution at the FABs. Using the cheaper and inexperienced young workers to fill up the company ranks and the loss of many experienced "mentors", sunk employee moral to the bottom, deepened the distrust between the "rank and file employees" and executive management. Ignorance, loss of personal motivation and shear incompetence displaced the "Intel Culture" that was the life-blood of Intel Corp. during its hey days.

 

Treating employees as "commodity" rather than as an "essential asset" had a corrosive long-term effect. Exploiting cheap "indentured laborers" through H1B visas and "green card" sponsorship, in addition to employing "foreign labor interns" who earned very little money under the OPT program was another way for Intel Executives to cut labor costs. Who of these executives really cared about "company culture" as being essential for achieving execution results? Quality and cohesiveness of the company "human capital", were not even part of the picture for these executives, in their zeal to collect their annual executive bonuses.

 

 "Swan Wars - The Empire Strikes Backwards"

 

No wonder that Mr. Swan (an accountant by trade) who succeeded BK as Intel CEO was unable to put the genie back in the bottle in the aftermath of his predecessor's blunders. In spite of correctly identifying the company's main problems as employee culture-deterioration related, not much could be repaired without radical course correction to reestablish employee trust in executive management.

 

(See: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/technology/intel-culture-robert-swan.html).

 

Even the new CEO's best intentions and grand declarations had limited effect, due to the permanent decimation of the old "Intel Culture" practitioners. Mr. swan's bookkeeping mastery may have kept the stock holders at bay for a while longer; however, from many external points of view his efforts could be depicted as: "Swan Wars - The Empire Strikes Backwards"...

 

The genie is not anything that you want (or can) mess with

 

Transactional HR policies initiated to save the company money in the short term, by trading older (and more expensive) with cheaper, inexperienced younger replacements (NCGs in "Intel Speak"), resulted in major backfires due to the disastrous HR practices and edicts, initiated by Intel Corp. CEO Krazanich and the abysmal degree of supervision on the part of Intel Board of Directors.

 

Trained Labor "Shortages"

 

All employees laid off en-mass during the 2015/2016 massive layoffs and were forced to sign separation agreements that excluded them from being rehired by Intel Corp. for the rest of their lives. By implementing such policy Intel Corp. deliberately excluded almost 17,000 experienced workers from its potential workforce. At the same time, Intel Corp. claims that it cannot find enough qualified employees in the U.S. and therefore lobbies the U.S. State Department to import tens of thousands of cheap foreign workers, through H1B visa sponsorship programs, "Green Card" sponsorship and foreign worker "internship programs", known as Optional Practical Training (OPT).

 

We will cover the rampant sponsorship of foreign labor and the shenanigans that U.S. corporation are practicing to save on the cost of labor in an upcoming article. However, here is Intel Corp. record of H1B visa sponsorship over the last decade:

 H1B visa sponsorship allowed Intel Corp. over the years, to receive labor replacements at a low cost. H1B visa holders are indentured employees who are at the mercy of their employers to stay in the U.S. and therefore are reluctant to come up with any salary demands for the duration of their visa term. No wonder that H1B visa is so popular with large corporations like Intel Corp. when the main criterion for hiring is keeping employee salaries at bay.

The National Security Farce

 

Picture taken at the Intel Chengdu (PRC) campus Cafeteria
(click on image to enlarge detail) 

The above picture was taken at the cafeteria in the large facility of Intel Corp. in Chengdu, China (PRC). As you can readily see from the picture, many people present in this corporate space are wearing the Chinese Popular Liberation Army (PLA) uniforms. Make no mistake, these are Intel Corp. employees. In fact all the people wearing uniform are either managers or high level technical contributors. Intel Corp. does not want you to know that these PLA army officers are their employees, because, as members of the Chinese Armed forces, Intel can pay them meager salaries. However, When it comes to taking orders and serving the interest of either the Chinese Government, or. Intel Corp. it is not clear which entity prevail... Clearly, For Intel Corp. significant savings on payroll expenses of 10,000 employees is a major bonus. National security...? Don't ask don't tell.

 

Intel Corp. is also mobilizing its high-powered PR machine to convince the current U.S. Government to "donate" our tax payer's money to subsidize their manufacturing facilities to the tune of tens of Billions of dollars. Currently (2021) Intel Corp. is known to employ about 10,000 people in China and maintains multi-billion dollar facilities in the following location in:

• Dalian, China - FAB Production Site
  
• Shanghai, China - assembly and test site
  
• Chengdu, China - assembly and test site

In addition to other facilities in:

• San Jose, Costa Rica
• Kulim, Malaysia
• Penang, Malaysia
• Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Suddenly, semiconductor manufacturing becomes a matter of National Security. 

Never mind the multi-billion dollar investment that Intel Corp. established in China over the last decade and the $84 billion that Intel Corp. chose to spend on stock buyback, rather than invest in further expansion of its U.S. domestic manufacturing and R&D facilities and pay salaries to U.S. domestic employees.

(see: With CHIPS Act, US Risks Building a White Elephant and

 Does America Want a CHIPS for Buybacks Act?)

 

Apparently, National Security was not considered a problem until after Intel Corp. began experiencing business losses stemming from laying off their domestic, experienced (and older) employees...

 

To some politicians it still makes sense to subsidize a large corporation, such as Intel Corp. that lay off their domestic experienced employees and replace them with imported foreign labor, financed by our taxpayer's dollars! 

Ask your own Senator or member of Congress about their reasons to vote for "Corporate Welfare" of this kind, with no strings attached or any perceived benefit to the average taxpayer, who is not a shareholder of a semiconductor company. 

 

Just to remind our politicians, there already a well established mechanism for public financing of corporations--it is known as the stock market!

 

Suggested Corrective Actions

For the benefit of ex-employees who were wronged by the company, as well as for the well-being of current employees and the future benefit of Intel Corp. stock holders, Pat Gelsinger, the new appointed CEO will see good reasons to correct the situation. This must begin by negotiating a fair settlement with wronged ex-employees, correct HR procedures regarding hiring and firing and release the company stock holders from liabilities imposed on the company by ex-CEO Brian Krzanich terrible legacy. 

References:

• For The Last Five Years They Continue to Wish We Were Dead
• Intel Corp. Marked Employees as Thieves to Prevent Their Rehiring

• Intel laid me off for being too old, engineer claims in lawsuit
  
• Age discrimination: Intel investigation drags on for years, worker protections lag 
• Feds Say Intel Discriminated Against Older Workers in 2015 Layoffs
• How Boeing Was Set on the Path to Disaster by the Cult of Jack Welch 
• The economic impact of ageism 
• Does America Want a CHIPS for Buybacks Act? 
• Intel Continues to Rehire Veterans: At Some Point They’ll Run Out 
• With CHIPS Act, US Risks Building a White Elephant 
• Intel Shareholders Reject Executive Pay Plan 
  
   
  
   

 

Intel Corp. ExecutivesShady or even Criminal Behavior

We have covered the massive age discrimination practices that resulted in forced retirements and massive layoffs of older Intel Corp. employees in 2015, 2016 and beyond. When I talk face-to-face with members of PDX-TIE.ORG or other ex-Intel employees (less frequently, due to COVID-19) I am surprised about their ignorance regarding the fact that the company is faced with so many very significant lawsuits due to various shady and perhaps criminal behavior of its senior executives and the board of directors.

From my own perspective, the 2015/2016 layoffs were the event that "broke the camel's back" and proliferated the seeds of corruption and mistrust between Intel Corp. Executive management and the remainder of employees workforce.

While the "Executive Class" at Intel Corporation looked at their bonuses and the stock market evaluation of the company as their main goal, they lost their "moral compass" to unproductive finger-pointing, coverup and greed. Make no mistake, technological challenges always abound in the engineering world. This is why people who pursue engineering as a career, typically belong to "problem Solver" personality class. The main challenge for true engineers (not "engineers" in title or even by university degree) is to get their managers to overcome their "risk aversion" and "cover your ass" attitude. Technology may be challenged by rules of physics; however, management and particularly Executive Management is challenged by human behavioral factors that are essentially all "man-made".

The old "Intel Culture" defined the path for coexistence between both "risk taking" (as in venturing to achieve extremely high goals) and "risk management" (challenging the validity of ideas based on data or provable facts through the "constructive confrontation", rules of debate). These principles were the core values of the company and enabled its workforce to great achievements, through "thick and thin", while facing both technological challenges as well as tough competition in the Semiconductor market segment.

The great principles of "Intel Culture" were eroded, slowly but surely, over a long period of time,after Andrew Grove was replaced as CEO of the company by a series of successors.

The worst Intel Corp. CEO without a doubt was Brian Krzanich (BK), who did not only violate the basic principles of "Intel Culture", but actually made a great effort to overrule and wipe it out in his zeal to receive his Executive Bonuses. It is ironic that BK was forced to resign his post as CEO, due to blatant violation of the the Employee Handbook--the same operational handbook that spelled the rules of "Intel Culture".(see: https://www.pdx-tie.org/2018/06/mf-intel-ceo-resignation-raises-more.html)

The major side effect of getting rid of experienced (and older) employees, who grew up on principles known as "Intel Culture" (attributed to ex-CEO Andrew Grove), was the erosion of the company founders values. "Intel Culture" promoted transparency and discipline from employees at all levels, including the Executives level of offices up to the CEO level.

The sudden disappearance (due to forced "early retirement" and massive layoffs) of older employees (who themselves grew up on "Intel Culture"), left  the younger generations of Intel Corp. employees, who replaced the "old timers", having to learn their way around the various company operations, on their own.

The Intel Corp. Executive Class was so detached from reality that they believed in younger replacement employees' ability to ramp-up on-their own, without the benefit of experienced employees, being around to consult and guide the newcomers (in Intel speak the "NEOs"). Apparently, these executives believed that product design engineers and Fab workers can perform their job by watching YouTube videos and sharing messages through Twitter or Facebook.

 

Over the last five years, we have seen plenty of evidence to the aftermath that was left following the 2015/2016 layoffs, as the "transparency" "Open Door" "problem ownership" and "constructive confrontation" elements of Grove's "Intel Culture" were replaced by coverup and severe suppression of facts, in addition to the fabrication of "fake news, public relations campaigns" designed to keep both company employees and stock holders, at bay.

Unfortunately, there are too many similarities of Executive Class behaviors in corporate America that are created by people whose self-interest and greed, end up working against the company's long-term interests as well as the company employees best interests.

The Boeing B737MAX program fiasco, has so many parallels to the Intel story, in terms of Corporate Executives forcing their way on their underlings by decree and without listening to employees feedback. Between the Boeing case and the Intel Corp. case there is only one exception: thus far (as far as we know) Intel Corp. actions did not result in the loss of human lives.

Currently, there are  a number of legal processes undergoing against Intel Corp., which allegedly, involve anything, from mismanagement of the old employee pension fund (that was in effect until 2009), to long-term coverup of functional "bugs" that are "featured" into the Intel chips "Architecture", to making false statement to stock holders and potential stock holders of INTC equities.

The most significant decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to allow the law suite against Intel Corp. "old pension fund", originally filed in 2015 by former Intel engineer Christopher Sulyma, to proceed without delays. This should be the talk of the day. For some reason, this law suit is not getting much attention in the press.

 

Since the Sulyma Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) legal case reached the SCOTUS level of jurisdiction, it is easy to understand that Intel Corp. legal defense strategy is and has always been, based on eroding the resolve of individual plaintiffs, by resorting to legal maneuvering, stalling, and outright lying.

I believe that every current or ex-employee of Intel Corporation, as well as current or past investors of INTC shares, should follow-up on these articles:

• U.S. Supreme Court allows retirement plan lawsuit against Intel
•  Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Intel Corporation and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
•  Intel Corporation Class Action Lawsuit
• Securities Class Action Lawsuit has been Filed Against Intel Corporation 

All the best,

 --Dr.Flywheel