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
14 Comments on Intel to Possibly Eliminate 10% of IT Staff for Efficiency
Overpaid/under worked
I want that job... Then I can do my hobbies while I get paid...
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?
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.
BTW, I think the intel bashing was justified.
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"?