Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/intel-will-lay-off-15-to-20-of-its-factory-workers-memo-says.23037/page-2
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Intel will lay off 15% to 20% of its factory workers, memo says

Daniel Nenni said:
Hopefully the people who leaked the internal memo are cut as well. It amazes me that in the span of two years Intel will have laid of more than 30% of the company. That is not good management.
Click to expand...
30% is a crazy large number. I don’t feel like I have heard much beyond the people like what projects they are cutting or how they work differently.

Cutting people without an explicit communication of what they are doing around fabs, technology, designs, business units makes it really a mystery how this won’t put them in deeper execution hole than they currently are.

I get it they have too may people and maybe to deep a levels, so trimming with an explicit strategy and culture change is a must.

All I see is lots of top level talk but no real change of culture or how business is being done.

I think this whole fixing headcount against benchmarks will kill moral of the few motivated people left and I wonder if any really believe the leadership anymore.
 
osnium said:
The 2024/2025 layoffs are deeper than the ACT layoffs in terms of percentage. Will the result be an even worse doom spiral?
Click to expand...
That would be the definition of a doom spiral, good ol' positive feedback. Barring a miracle LBT will go scorched earth to satisfy near term financial obligations and I guess will be left with the GF model. It's just so much more Trumpian to just remind Taiwan that neocolonies should do as they're told, rather than attempt broader reindustrialization which the market hasn't asked for and doesn't need (and also has never been attempted in human history).
 
coldsolder215 said:
That would be the definition of a doom spiral, good ol' positive feedback. Barring a miracle LBT will go scorched earth to satisfy near term financial obligations and I guess will be left with the GF model. It's just so much more Trumpian to just remind Taiwan that neocolonies should do as they're told, rather than attempt broader reindustrialization which the market hasn't asked for and doesn't need (and also has never been attempted in human history).
Click to expand...
I guess TSMC and Samsung will be the last two leading edge fabs standing until China develops indigenous EUV and SMIC comes roaring back.
 
Sounds like some McKinsey consultants went to Intel and told the board/CEO "Hey TSMC has 30% fewer foundry employee's than you do per unit of production"

Intel board/CEO says "How can we be competitive if TSMC can operate with 30% fewer employees, we need to do layoffs"

Intel does some internal analysis, talks to some directors and upper managers and realizes they can't fire 30% of foundry employees without wheels coming off and settles on 15-20%.

This is how decisions at F500 companies get made, and how they get into corporate death spirals.

The truth is Intel will never be competitive with TSMC no matter how many people they fire, because they operate in a completely different culture. Layoffs will only add to Intel's culture challenges.
 
And McKinsey got a good check for destroying future but we need clarity though on exactly what's being cut the cut under pat was brutal I saw many talent leave or retire.
 
siliconbruh999 said:
if you wanna look at bad management: Kranzich :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Hiring 10K+ people when you are losing share and already bloated.... then focusing on foundry instead of AI execution.... then losing 25% of your revenue... Then having stock below book value and a problematic balance sheet ..... PG is on the mount Rushmore of failed CEOs....

Who are the contenders for destroying this much shareholder value?
 
count said:
The truth is Intel will never be competitive with TSMC no matter how many people they fire, because they operate in a completely different culture. Layoffs will only add to Intel's culture challenges.
Click to expand...
you are probably correct. .... if only some previous CEO had decided to not invest in Fab technology and instead sign agreements with TSMC. :ROFLMAO: :LOL:
 
I'm watching this website for objective news (ie numbers). https://www.warntracker.com/company/intel

Some surprises on this website: As coldsoldier indicated the last big layoff affecting OR and AZ (ie the fabs) was in 2016.

PG protected the fabs, judging from this website: In 2024 there were no WARN Act cuts in OR or AZ, most cuts were in CA (no fabs).

LBT appears to be gutting the fabs (ie OR, AZ), and protecting the designers, in contrast to PG, based on the news report in the Oregonian. I would wait to see how this plays out (watch what they do not what they say). But if it evolves as the Oregonian indicates this sets up fab-lite (ie using TSMC and Samsung more rather than Intel internal mfg).
 
benb said:
I'm watching this website for objective news (ie numbers). https://www.warntracker.com/company/intel

Some surprises on this website: As coldsoldier indicated the last big layoff affecting OR and AZ (ie the fabs) was in 2016.

PG protected the fabs, judging from this website: In 2024 there were no WARN Act cuts in OR or AZ, most cuts were in CA (no fabs).

LBT appears to be gutting the fabs (ie OR, AZ), and protecting the designers, in contrast to PG, based on the news report in the Oregonian. I would wait to see how this plays out (watch what they do not what they say). But if it evolves as the Oregonian indicates this sets up fab-lite (ie using TSMC and Samsung more rather than Intel internal mfg).
Click to expand...
Pat had lots of voluntary retirement and all groups were open to this.... there are people who took the package and had a job at a new company the next day. This is not the case with LBT. groups need to decide which job and who to eliminate so that the correct changes are made for Intel. This will be much more unpleasant for employees.
 
LBT is making the same the same fundamental mistake as BK and PG by committing to the losing IDM business model. PG was a great leader with a bad strategy. People here seem to think LBT is going to be a better leader but he’s still got a bad strategy. Can you even consider someone a good leader if they pursue a failing strategy?
 
benb said:
I'm watching this website for objective news (ie numbers). https://www.warntracker.com/company/intel

Some surprises on this website: As coldsoldier indicated the last big layoff affecting OR and AZ (ie the fabs) was in 2016.

PG protected the fabs, judging from this website: In 2024 there were no WARN Act cuts in OR or AZ, most cuts were in CA (no fabs).

LBT appears to be gutting the fabs (ie OR, AZ), and protecting the designers, in contrast to PG, based on the news report in the Oregonian. I would wait to see how this plays out (watch what they do not what they say). But if it evolves as the Oregonian indicates this sets up fab-lite (ie using TSMC and Samsung more rather than Intel internal mfg).
Click to expand...
So eventually does this mean a fab spinoff or just a shutdown?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top