Intel Says Employees Must Return To the Office 4 Days a Week (oregonlive.com) 125
New Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan has mandated that employees return to the office four days a week starting September 1 to boost collaboration and decision-making. Tan also signaled upcoming job cuts and organizational changes, including a flatter management structure and fewer meetings. "When we spend time together in person, it fosters more engaging and productive discussion and debate," Tan wrote in a note to employees posted on Intel's website Thursday. "It drives better and faster decision-making. And it strengthens our connection with colleagues." Oregon Live reports: Intel factory workers and many researchers are already on site every day, in cleanrooms and labs. But Intel has thousands of employees in corporate roles who have spent at least part of their time working from home since the pandemic. The company adopted a "hybrid-first" approach in 2021, allowing most employees the flexibility to work from home much of the time. More recently, it sought to have workers on site about three days a week.
"Adherence to this policy has been uneven at best," Tan said Thursday. "I strongly believe that our sites need to be vibrant hubs of collaboration that reflect our culture in action." Intel is Oregon's largest corporate employer, with 20,000 employees in the state, so bringing workers back to the office will have a big impact and could set a benchmark for other organizations. [...] On Thursday, Tan said he wants fewer and smaller meetings to free up employees to do their work. He also told employees to expect "several months" of job cuts, but Tan didn't specify how many positions he plans to eliminate.
"Adherence to this policy has been uneven at best," Tan said Thursday. "I strongly believe that our sites need to be vibrant hubs of collaboration that reflect our culture in action." Intel is Oregon's largest corporate employer, with 20,000 employees in the state, so bringing workers back to the office will have a big impact and could set a benchmark for other organizations. [...] On Thursday, Tan said he wants fewer and smaller meetings to free up employees to do their work. He also told employees to expect "several months" of job cuts, but Tan didn't specify how many positions he plans to eliminate.
WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I work from home.
I value the chance to do that, and do it conscientiously, and work a bit more than paid hours to be sure I am being fair.
Even so, I am sure I am not quite as productive as if I was in the office, working the same hours.
*But that is a hit my employer is willing to accept.*
If they did not accept it, I would be more likely to look for work elsewhere.
So that is why they do accept it.
Re:WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I do not believe that it is a hit in general and as soon as you look at neutral (!) studies, they generally find the same. I am pretty sure I am more productive at home. In addition, people that slack off in the office will at least not prevent others from getting work done when they slack off at home.
Re:WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am pretty sure I am more productive at home.
I think it depends a lot on the person, a lot on the work and a lot on their perception. I work with a software engineer who would definitely tell you he's more productive from home. And he certainly writes more code at home. And he gets disturbed in the office a fair bit which really gets in the way of writing code. But... from my point of view he's more productive in the office because at home he tends to (undisturbed) go down rabbit holes and work on problems that are less important, or go a fair way with the wrong assumptions.
WFH does put barriers in the way of communication (literally not being disturbed is being temporarily not communicative), which can be good or bad depending. I work in a very small team doing R&D, so communication is key.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure I am more productive at home.
I think it depends a lot on the person, a lot on the work and a lot on their perception. I work with a software engineer who would definitely tell you he's more productive from home. And he certainly writes more code at home. And he gets disturbed in the office a fair bit which really gets in the way of writing code.
That pretty much nails it. I have a hybrid work, half from home, half onsite. The half from home works great because to be frank, my home office is multi-monitored , multi OS' and designed to get it done fast. A lot of web, relational DB and calculations, and a bit of programming Only interruptions are SO and pets. It would be difficult to duplicate in my work office
But... from my point of view he's more productive in the office because at home he tends to (undisturbed) go down rabbit holes and work on problems that are less important, or go a fair way with the wrong assumptions.
My WFH sounds sort of similar. I get to work problems without interruption, and can afford to experiment with different solutions.
My WFO is
Re: WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:3)
Teams sucks [Re: WFH *is* often a hit on produ...] (Score:2)
Every meeting is on teams though anyway, if I was in the office headphones on and in a teams meeting.
I absolutely hate Teams. It gives you the illusion of collaboration, without actually facilitating collaboration.
Re: (Score:2)
Every meeting is on teams though anyway, if I was in the office headphones on and in a teams meeting.
I absolutely hate Teams. It gives you the illusion of collaboration, without actually facilitating collaboration.
I concur. I use Zoom for our board meetings, but there isn't normal technical and intellectual collaboration - mostly reportage of the individual committees and anything that needs decided that needs a concurrence or vote. We all see each other at least once a month anyway. And that's when I get most intellectual work done anyway by going to the individuals who are relevant. Hard to get accountants interested in Intermodulation and other such technical subjects. I've tried, and watched eyes glaze over.
I
Re: (Score:2)
I used to have to put on earphones in the office to stop getting interrupted, or worse, people just come up behind me and stand there waiting for me to notice them. WFH full-time since *before* COVID, and find it great for working on problems and takes extra effort to communicate with team. Every meeting is on teams though anyway, if I was in the office headphones on and in a teams meeting. Just don't have to a) buy suits and b) commute 1 hour each way each day so I find my time is more useful and less hectic rush rush rush. That had to count for some level of mental better health too.
There is something to be said for not living an hour away from work.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure I am more productive at home.
I think it depends a lot on the person, a lot on the work and a lot on their perception.
Exactly. Some people work best from home. Others don't. Some jobs can be done efficiently remotely. Others can't.
Discussion on /. seems to be dominated by people who think all jobs consist of work that is best done by a person isolating themselves in a cave and pounding out code with no supervision and no interruptions. This is true for some jobs, but not all.
Re:WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
WFH does put barriers in the way of communication
No, it does not. Especially in large companies where the people you need to communicate with are often impossible to be on the same floor anyway.
I work and communicate with teams in different offices, in different countries, and in different timezones. Being in office or not makes no difference since we have to do zoom calls or messages anyway.
Everyone working at home is actually more effective since there is often less background noise in zoom calls and everyone often attends on time. People in office are often late to the zoom calls because they have to go to meeting rooms or quiet rooms before joining, or everyone just talk over each other in the open office.
The only people who thinks communication is happening in the office are middle managers who see everybody talking in the busy office, what they did not know is everyone are on different zoom calls and are mentally shutting out other people talking in the same office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
I retired back in April 2023, but for the three years prior, I worked 100% remote in software development. I was much more productive working from home than from an office. The main reasons were lack of interruption and a stress-free commute as I walked about 7m to my office.
However, I live alone (so no kids to disturb me) and I have an ergonomic, dedicated workspace in my house. If you have little kids or a workspace that is in the middle of a busy house, then you might not be so productive working from home.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I live alone (so no kids to disturb me) and I have an ergonomic, dedicated workspace in my house. If you have little kids or a workspace that is in the middle of a busy house, then you might not be so productive working from home.
And this is what has skewed results in the last few years - people who suddenly found themselves working at home without having prepared for it (ie no dedicated workspace etc) with the added hit of kids being around who would normally have been at school.
Re:WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
25 years ago I made a deal with my employer. I had a 1 hour commute each way, we had a product deadline to meet. I traded work from home for a 9 hour work day (+1 hour from my total commute time). I worked from home, no kids, dedicated office and was much more productive and hit the deadline with time to spare. I never went back to the office - except for special occasions. I saved a bunch of money on car expenses (gas, maintenance, insurance) and got an hour of my life back
Fast-forward to 2024, my brother dies and I move to take care of his kids. 2-4 kids (depending on who is home) and one giant dog, dedicated workspace. The amount of time I spent working plummeted. Feeding and walking the dog, driving kids around, managing the household finances, maintaining the house, etc, etc. eats up a huge amount of time.
I did some of that stuff - maintaining a home, personal stuff - without eating into working hours when it was just me. When you add up to 5 living beings that you also have to manage there is simply not enough time in the day (and weekends are for naps, thank you).
However, I will say that it is finally nice to take advantage of that "oh you have a family" PTO where people can just disappear from work. Perhaps employers should take advantage of this and start hiring single-no-kids people, or even favor married-spouse-doesn't-work people - that would make sense to me if you want to increase productivity. That would suck for single-with-kids people, but you could stick them in roles that don't have big productivity impacts.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have kids to take care of then going to an office doesn't change that, someone still needs to take care of the kids which means you'd have childcare expenses on top of the commute costs. There's nothing stopping you from working from home *and* paying for childcare, that still works out cheaper than commuting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you are suggesting in the last part is illegal.
Oh, is that still an impediment these days? Seems like "legal" is now a crowdsourced project
Re: WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The main reasons were lack of interruption and a stress-free commute as I walked about 7m to my office.
Lack of interruption, stress free commute, not being absent while my kids grow up, having my wife cater my lunch, getting energized listening to my kids play, being able to schedule life more effectively, etc. The list goes on and on. These are all things that help me get my work done. Even the time I spend on Slashdot doesn't adversely impact my productivity since I get SO MUCH MORE done at home than I ever do at the office.
Being on-site is a death sentence, while working from home encourages physical and
Re: WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same execs that think that employees under the threat of waves of layoffs announced at the same time will provide "vibrant hubs of collaboration that reflect our culture in action"...
Re: (Score:2)
The word communication gets vastly overused, as if the environment will force you to communicate and that'll just work.
What's really meant is empathy, intelligence, and buying into the values and goals and attitudes.
If people are already compatible then you DO NOT NEED TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM. You'll naturally find each other online or on calls as and when needed.
If you have to force people into the same airspace in order to get white collar work done then you don't have a team, you have reluctant and undriv
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And forcing people to "communicate" or "collaborate" results in anything but.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of those in upper management show that empathy is not desired. These are the same people who don't understand that pushing people too hard will result in losing the best employees to other employers who do value them.
Re: WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is pretty situational.
At work there's a set of distractions, and at home there's a set of distractions, and it varies between workplaces and people. If you have a couple of preschool kids, you are likely to be highly distracted at home, and if you have excessively social people at work, low value distractions at work are likely.
There's the commute, obviously, that eats into time and people dedicated to the work are more likely to spend more hours working when they aren't trying to plan around a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I do not believe that it is a hit in general and as soon as you look at neutral (!) studies, they generally find the same. I am pretty sure I am more productive at home. In addition, people that slack off in the office will at least not prevent others from getting work done when they slack off at home.
Google HR did a semi-formal study on this question during the pandemic, using a lot of internally-available metrics to evaluate productivity and then perform multiple linear regression using a lot of different variables to determine what sort of employees were more and less productive when working from home. Being good data scientists they added some caveats to their results, especially around the fact that pandemic-era data has some confounders, for example, that children were also at home. But I think the
Re: WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:2)
Re: WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This, if i'm forced into an office i need to leave on time otherwise i miss the train schedule so it takes even longer to get back. If i'm office based i won't take a work laptop home, i'll leave it in the office. Can't claim i need to work in the office and then claim working remote is fine so long as it's after hours unpaid overtime.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only do I work more than paid hours, but I am always available. If people need me, I will work no matter what time of night or on the weekend. If I'm forced to go into an office than I get a lot more resistant to off hours work because that time is easily already burned in the commute.
If anything, WFH drives my competitive spirit. I make it my mission to be more productive than anyone whose time management involves sitting in traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
> I value the chance to do that, and do it conscientiously, and work a bit more than paid hours to be sure I am being fair.
> Even so, I am sure I am not quite as productive as if I was in the office, working the same hours.
> *But that is a hit my employer is willing to accept.*
please let this reply not be the one being read and accepted as truth, the only truth.
I work home home
I value the chance to do that, and do it conscientiously, and work the paid hours to be sure I
Re: WFH *is* often a hit on productivity, but.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
who are you replying to?
cause I clearly am in favor of WFH... unless >>>> somehow doesn't translate to quoted posts?
Re: (Score:3)
It may be "often" a productivity hit, but the evidence so far is that usually it's the opposite, so any company claiming that as the rationale is covering for some other reason.
But there's a more interesting angle to this: four days office, plus one day WFH, is very, very, likely to create an environment in which people do what managers are pretending happens in 5 day WFH situations - the WFH will be "W"FH. People who are supposedly working from home will find it increasingly silly to actually have an effic
Re: (Score:2)
It could be that some are more productive at work and some are more productive at home. But I have never seen an employee that is productive and would stop being productive at home. But there is another point in this also and that is worker happiness. Happy workers are less likely to leave and that is a real money saver for the company.
But I think the real reason for return to the office-policy is that they just want to fire employees and this is a nice way to do it as people resign themselves. And why do t
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real reason for office mandates is so that ethically questionable conversations happen in person, rather than taking place using a tool that generates a paper trail, like slack or teams.
Admission of not being very good at technology? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen remote working in several companies. In one of them, a communications oriented company, it just worked great. Large fully distributed groups worked together. Then I've seen the same thing in other companies and just realized it doesn't work. One of the things that I remember from the first company is that meetings used to regularly end early. That *everything* was available remotely and that people were very open to quick informal phone calls as needed, but that you didn't get any time wasting. Surely we should be getting better at this, but every newer company I work for seems worse at it than that. Is the problem here that many companies have been taken over by the finance people who don't really understand or even like technology? Is Intel here basically admitting that they aren't good at technology and remote systems?
Re:Admission of not being very good at technology? (Score:4, Funny)
Is Intel here basically admitting that they aren't good at technology and remote systems?
They are. Which is in line with many of their offerings, e.g. their CPUs.
Re:Admission of not being very good at technology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Youre way, way overthinking this one. Intel is prepping for cutting a solid 25% of its workforce. Or more. Theyre being pretty transparent about it. Any employee that isnt considered absolutely critical to the core business is gonna be required to come back to the office, jump through a literal hoop, balance a ball on their nose, bark like a seal, and bring their own toilet paper. Dont like it? They were gonna lay you off anyways. Unless you really, rrreeaalllyy want to stay, take the hint and find another job.
That makes no sense. Why would they go to the expense and hassle of your scenario to do something they could do in a few minutes just by laying off people who aren't there?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes no sense.
It does.
Why would they go to the expense and hassle of your scenario to do something they could do in a few minutes just by laying off people who aren't there?
They want those people to leave on their own.
Much cheaper than laying them off.
Re:Admission of not being very good at technology? (Score:4, Insightful)
Depending on the location, laying someone off can be expensive and there are all manner of laws covering it.
Making someone's working conditions shit so that they quit voluntarily is often much cheaper for the company.
Re: Admission of not being very good at technology (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A big issue with THAT logic is that if you are specialized in a field, such as chip design, going somewhere else may not be quite as easy or simple.
Re: Admission of not being very good at technolog (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plausible deniability.
Also, if, say, 40% of those who are forced to return to office quit, the company would say "look, we only laid off 10K people, but 4K more people left on their own accord" as if it was the employees who quit just like that.
Make the working conditions worse is one step in that direction.
Re: (Score:3)
Plausible deniability. Also, if, say, 40% of those who are forced to return to office quit, the company would say "look, we only laid off 10K people, but 4K more people left on their own accord" as if it was the employees who quit just like that.
Make the working conditions worse is one step in that direction.
Here is a pretty good listing of how to lay off people. https://www.findlaw.com/legalb... [findlaw.com]. There are a lot of other good links on the site.
Re: (Score:2)
If you voluntary quit, they don't have to pay you severance or be on the hook for unemployment (at least here in the USA).
Re: (Score:2)
If you voluntary quit, they don't have to pay you severance or be on the hook for unemployment (at least here in the USA).
Sure.
But let's think for a moment. Especially in an at-will situation, it's hella easier to just say "It is time to come back to the office. The pandemic is over, and we need you to work under the situation you were hired in."
Refusal then becomes a viable reason to terminate for reason. Done. The idea that they want to make it so unpleasant that people quit is pretty roundabout, if the idea is to have a layoff. The employees could have quit when the back to the office orders came in.
The only way o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense 100% of the time.
In Thursday’s SEC filing and conference call with investors, Intel revealed plans to lower its operating expenses for the current year and for 2026 below what was previously expected. The company indicated that layoffs will set back Intel millions of dollars in up-front severance pay, but ultimately cut costs.
This is intel and its ceo in a nutshell,
You are going to instantly hate me - but I'm a CEO, and Intel has problems that aren't universal to all of us.
Intel is a company that is run poorly, and has been for years. CEO's are like anyone, there are good and bad. That they have people WFO does not make it any different than any other poorly run company. The poorly run part tends to happen when the CEO allows accountants to make the final decisions.
But severance pay costs money, and always does. Intel is p
Accountants on both sides.... (Score:2)
You think they didn't workshop / simulate both sides?
The monte carlo analysis practically writes itself, so will be left as an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the CEO doesn't actually care what's better. What he's saying is not what he's doing/thinking. He's there to gain shareholder confidence in Intel, which he will do by laying off a quarter of the workforce, especially in the corporate offices. He'll do that by making people want to leave to get a better job with less uncertainty. Once that's over he has to figure out how to claw back some of the lost market share. He's not a technical person, and he doesn't have a crystal ball, so it's not clear
Re: (Score:2)
Layoffs cost money, they hurt shareholder perception, and government takes note because of WARN act and such.
Remember, Intel laid off 15% of their workforce last year, and another 20% was just announced, bringing them down from over 100,000 employees to around 80,000 employees (still twice as big as AMD, though, with 30,000 employees)
RTO
Re: (Score:2)
Layoffs cost money, they hurt shareholder perception, and government takes note because of WARN act and such.
Intel needs to reduce personnel costs. Companies who don't have WFH (because a whole lot of them have no such thing available) have layoffs all the time.
Remember, Intel laid off 15% of their workforce last year, and another 20% was just announced, bringing them down from over 100,000 employees to around 80,000 employees (still twice as big as AMD, though, with 30,000 employees)
Yeah, Intel is a poorly run, failing company that tried to rest on their laurels, and it's costing them big time.
RTO is basically the third leg to layoffs - and usually be of the ones that are "expensive" - the ones earning high salaries and have options to go elsewhere,
I see this in a lot of comments, that the very best employees demand to only work from home - is there any actual data, or just an opinion that runs rampant on Slashdot. Does it then follow that employees that go to work every day are poor employ
Re: Admission of not being very good at technology (Score:2)
From what I've seen, even department to department in a large org, is the ability to work remotely has a substantial cultural component. There's an entire generation of older workers, many of them in management, that either can't understand how to work remotely or refuse to. And it's sort of understandable, many of those people predate having a significant online social presence... they just aren't used to interacting with people that way.
Managing a remote org well either requires sniping known self-motivat
Re: (Score:2)
And it's sort of understandable, many of those people predate having a significant online social presence... they just aren't used to interacting with people that way.
Managing a remote org well either requires sniping known self-motivated high-performing employees and giving them a great deal of autonomy,
Think that there's lots of truth in what you are saying here. I think though that this is really really a sign of being bad at technology. One of the key things with being good at technology is dealing with teaching the "low tech" people in the company so that everybody comes up to speed.
The other thing is tech choices. If you go with Office 356 you end up with documents you own and lock. That makes collaboration difficult. Just use Google office and multiple people can be editing at the same time, which el
Re: Admission of not being very good at technology (Score:2)
It's not the tech, it's the management. Good management fosters productivity. Bad management lets things fall apart.
There are plenty of productive remote companies out there. The difference is they don't just sit around and hope to be productive. They make experiments, change, measure, improve, refine. If the company doesn't have a dedicated office for productivity, nobody is gonna do it. Things don't improve unless you work at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Think it's more about being bad at leadership. A lot of the ripe opportunities for remote work have management that have no ability to understand the work being done for them, and can't tell if it's really hard work or they are getting grifted. So they sit with a lot of insecurity about if they can evaluate the staff.
In person, they can feel more confident that they can judge the behavior, even if they don't understand the work. Still very ripe for getting conned, but relatively fewer people can convincingl
Re: (Score:2)
Right - so bad technology. I've used an HP Halo conference system and the ability to talk and collaborate was amazing. There must be something better than teams. In fact just google meet / big screens and a decent camera setup is much better than teams. Intel wants to be a leading tech company so they should be able to come up with something better than the average.
I don't say that it's never worth meeting in person, just that daily meetings should only need to apply to a specific limited set of people like
Re: (Score:2)
WFH may be less productive, but that does not mean an employer is wrong to allow it, because it means they keep staff who might not otherwise stay, and possibly for a lower wage.
Re: As someone who WFH and uses Teams all the time (Score:2)
Re: As someone who WFH and uses Teams all the time (Score:3)
Re: As someone who WFH and uses Teams all the tim (Score:3)
what about everyone else who needs to talk to Bob? Are they going to leave him alone too? They should be emailing Bob or iming him so that Bob has the flexibility to answer the people he feels are more important. Since they are IMing out of courtesy and respect for bobs time, bob may as well be at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your instant messenger not transfer visio charts or any kind of graphics file?
I can send out all manner of charts, and graphs. Is the person going to look at them or pay attention? Are they even there? I've caught people with just their picture up who are someplace else, definitely not in the room. I've taken to making sure to ask them a question.
What about everyone else who needs to talk to Bob? Are they going to leave him alone too?
This is going to horrify you, but the purpose of Bob's employment its not in ay way shape or form to leave Bob alone. Bob is just like me, there to do work. If I'm prohibited from seeing bob with an urgent problem, Bob becomes a non-asset,
Re: As someone who WFH and uses Teams all the tim (Score:2)
Re:As someone who WFH and uses Teams all the time. (Score:4, Insightful)
And productivity. If I have a thought, and want to talk to Bob about it, I can walk over to his office and bounce the idea off him, get feedback, and get back to work in a minute or two. Contrast that with getting the idea, sending a Zoom invite, getting verification from Bob, then having the meeting, then getting back to work, after a lot of time messing around. Telephone is almost useless if I have to spend 10 minutes getting Bob on the same page - and is he on the same page? So a lot of times, a person might just have an idea, then decide it is too much trouble to pursue.
My experience is quite the opposite. When we were all "in the office" (where, ironically, NOBODY had an office) if you wanted a quick chat with someone, you had to find a place to do it, otherwise you were (righty) considered a disruptive butthole. Good luck with that if you hadn't booked a room in advance.
On the other hand, with remote working and Zoom (or whatever, we use Teams now) you can simply call someone, share your screen, and talk about the thing you need to talk about. No need for an invitation or verification if it's someone on your team or someone you're working on a project for. You don't even need to leave your desk. To me, this is the height of efficiency. Absolutely zero time "messing around." Not to mention the ability to record everything -- to me, this is an absolute godsend. I can pay attention to what's happening in the here and now without taking notes, which I'm terrible at. If necessary I can review the recording later, which might even lead to thinking of some better ideas.
Not to mention that most of the people I interact with are in other states or other countries.
I don't doubt that some benefit from being in the office. That ain't me. I already told them I'm never going back, even though they called everybody back a couple of years ago. Since then I've gotten raises and bonuses so I assume they're okay with it.
Re: (Score:2)
And productivity. If I have a thought, and want to talk to Bob about it, I can walk over to his office and bounce the idea off him
Don't you guys have chat? Our tickets were in Jira, and we used the chat extensively - moreso than face-to-face, even though the guy I typically bothered for assistance was literally to my left. Honestly, about the only time we meat-spaced was before lunch, and end of day, when we'd already packed up our laptops. Plus, half of our staff was overseas, so chat was all we had for them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In the office I wear noise canceling headphones. I can't see the screen share in the meeting room so I typically just join from zoom. And if you dared to come interupt me while I'm working because "You had an idea", I'm quickly going to point at the DND red light on my cube.
Is your light worth losing your job over? Reminds me of the new guy would wouldn't answer his phone, claiming he only communicates via text. I needed an answer for something critical. And needed it now. I walked down to his office, he was chatting with a woman.
Me: "Didn't you get my phone call?
Him: "Yeah, I don't do phone calls. If you want to interact with me, it has to be text message."
Me: "Really, you need to answer the phone when I call. Texting won't work."
Him: Sorry, I don't do that."
Me: Actu
WFH works for some, not for others (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately both sides in the debate don't want to acknowledge this simple fact.
If you're a gregarious type perhaps working in a role where personal contact matters such as marketing, sales etc and where the social to and fro is a Big Deal, then obviously working in an office is better than being at home.
If however you work in IT and you like to concentrate on a task without interrupted but at your own pace - so long as you meet deadlines - and arn't that fussed about being with other people then WFH will work for you.
Personally I'm somewhere in the middle - I'd hate to go back to the office 5 days a week but 1 or 2 days a week just to keep those social connections going with my colleagues suits me fine.
YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're doing something like sales then a fixed office is a terrible place - you should generally be either visiting customers, or communicating with them (phonecalls are better done from home where there's less background noise and interruptions).
If you spend more time at home, how about forming social connections with your neighbors? There are millions of people who don't even know their neighbors because their home is just a place to sleep and they leave early for a long commute. Getting to know your n
Re: (Score:2)
"If you're doing something like sales then a fixed office is a terrible place - you should generally be either visiting customers, or communicating with them"
There's a lot more to sales than just parroting the brochure to a client.
As for neighbours , a lot of mine are arseholes. Sure, I get on with a few of them but we have little in common beyond living on the same street and they're working during the day anyway so probably wouldn't appreciate someone just turning up on the door for a chat.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately both sides in the debate don't want to acknowledge this simple fact.
If you're a gregarious type perhaps working in a role where personal contact matters such as marketing, sales etc and where the social to and fro is a Big Deal, then obviously working in an office is better than being at home.
If however you work in IT and you like to concentrate on a task without interrupted but at your own pace - so long as you meet deadlines - and arn't that fussed about being with other people then WFH will work for you.
Personally I'm somewhere in the middle - I'd hate to go back to the office 5 days a week but 1 or 2 days a week just to keep those social connections going with my colleagues suits me fine.
YMMV.
So... what you're saying is that if your job requires a lot of talking and not much doing you're better off in the office... If your job is productive than you're better off away from the former category.
Re: WFH works for some, not for others (Score:2)
So what you're saying is if you're the kind of person that likes to disrupt the work of others, generally put your needs first, or maybe even talk about yourself alot
, the office would suit you.
FIFY. just made it a bit more succinct.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're both a pair of antisocial aspies who would be the miserable buttholes sitting in the corner of any office terrified of anyone speaking to them. Probably best for everyone if you work from a basement miles away.
Re: WFH works for some, not for others (Score:2)
Re: WFH works for some, not for others (Score:2)
Who cares about this anti wfh shit company (Score:2)
Intel is doomed. That is all. At this point, they are going to spin off whatever semiconductor manufacturing expertise and capability they have and become some just another âoesome companyâ like HP did with Agilent 26 years ago.
Where Do You See It Going? (Score:3)
I've seen this sentiment expressed by quite a few. But, I am genuinely curious where you see that going?
If Intel is doomed, who or what replaces them? What will the computer hardware market look like in 5 to 10 years? AMD inside? ARM?
I can't see Intel going away in the next 5 - 10 years. Perhaps they change a bit, but Intel is more critical and does much more for the world than simply being a stock price.
Re: (Score:2)
If Intel were not making CPUs, then AMD and others would be more willing to use Intel fabs to make chips or use the Intel foundry business for SOMETHING. Not every chip needs the very latest fab process as long as the fab process offered aren't too horribly far behind. Global Foundries completely screwed up, no question, but even when Intel was far ahead in fab technology, notice that the initial two generations(Zen and Zen+) on Global Foundries 14nm and 10nm was enough to get AMD back from being on the
Re: (Score:2)
This is the danger of consolidation. If everyone comes to rely on a single provider for critical IT facilities - see also Microsoft - and then one day even that big corporation decides that providing those facilities in the same way as it has for a long time is no longer the right business strategy - again, see also Microsoft - that can leave a big hole.
However, in Intel's case there are alternative providers of both compatible CPUs (AMD) and effective competitors (everyone building ARM). There have been ti
Re: (Score:2)
And AMD is currently superior to Intel in every single segment of the PC CPU market
That was our conclusion as well when we bought new hardware recently. AMD seemed to have significantly better specs/prices for workstation-class CPUs, at least.
Re: (Score:2)
As they were in the early 2000s, but WEREN'T in the early 2010s before Ryzen. The back and forth is what keeps it from stagnating. Or at least keep them from both stagnating at the same time.
I say that ARM could take Intel's place to prevent stagnation and nobody would care. But it's a bit harder when it's two entirely different architectures.
Re: (Score:2)
As the OP wrote, Intel will go the way of HP and start charging for reloading their CPUs with electrons when their built-in electron tank runs dry after 10 GFlops and Intel CPUS will be hardcoded to only accept Genuine Intel Electrons (TM)(R).
And everyone will rejoice when they inevitably go bankrupt and the managers who ruined the once great company are put up against the wall.
I work from home (Score:3, Informative)
I was working from home since before COVID. However, everyone knows that if they need me in an office, for any reason, I will be there, no questions asked and no complaints. They just need to tell me where and when to be there.
Over the last 5 years, I can count on one hand the number of requests to appear in an office that I have received.
Oh, and guess what?
Most of the people I work with on a daily basis work out of different offices spread throughout the state. Even if I DID show up in an office every day, I'd be having the same Teams and phone calls as I do now, not meeting with people face to face. The difference is that I'd be working out of a small, informally office, using inferior equipment (compared to what I use from home) and I would be annoyed and less productive the entire time I was there.
Intel (Score:2)
The Trump administration really should go after whoever leaked this. (I'm betting they're CIA)
Prove it. (Score:2)
Studies show it's the opposite, that remote work boosts productivity. You can claim anything. Show me the data.
Personally I know that productivity is not whether someone can come interrupt me at my desk or being in a conference room. Productivity is when there's organization, refinement. Productivity is when a useless meeting that could have been an email, is actually an email.
You don't get that by just putting people in rooms. There is no hack to productivity. It's just hard work.
What he's telling employees (Score:2)
First, you are not to be trusted: unless we can check up on you at will we do not think you are earning your salary. Second, you are all extroverts: working at the office is much better for you.
In a nutshell, yet another stupid, assholic CEO.
Stealth layoffs (Score:2)
You're not free so long as someone controls your access to food, shelter and medicine. As long as that's the case you are a couple of paychecks away or at best a few bad years away from doing literally anything they tell you to do or just dying in the streets
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong. Just yesterday it was Microsoft in the comments on Slashdot - offering cash to underperformers to quit [slashdot.org].
When management runs out of ideas.. (Score:2)
Layoffs (Score:2)
They really want to get rid of more employees (Score:2)
Tan said he wants... (Score:2)
Tan said he wants fewer and smaller meetings to free up employees to do their work.
That is the biggest difference I see between European Companies and American Companies, having worked in both varieties. Europeans have a no-nonsense approach to meetings. They hate wasteful conversations and keep it brief. American, on the other hand, fill their calendars with useless meetings for all and sundry to attend. Stretch meetings for the whole hour or more, although the main topic of the meeting might have concluded in 10 min. Or more often, they just beat around the same bush in recurring meetin
The RTO order is bimodal (Score:2)
The order to return to the office 4 days a week is actually very selective. Only some employees have to return the to the office. A large percentage (20%) won't have to come to the office at all in the near future.
Having bodies in person is good business overall (Score:2)
I work at a higher ed institution stateside, and we're back to five days a week now by school presidential mandate. The public reasoning is, "The students need to have everyone available to them in person when they're here. Give them the best experience possible by being here to immediately help." The private reasoning is, "I know that some of you can and probably should work from home, and that 2) this 'collaboration is better' line some say is bullshit for jobs that people need to be locked in a closet to
in other news... (Score:2)
They have empty office buildings with long-term leases and the don't have the cash to afford to be able to break the leases.
Re: (Score:2)
They have empty office buildings with long-term leases and the don't have the cash to afford to be able to break the leases.
Intel does not lease much space.
They just recently sold (and leased back) office space in Folsom, CA. That was ~6 months ago.
They own their office space in Santa Clara, CA and San Jose, CA. (I would presume the San Jose campus is considered to be part of the assets of the Altera spinoff, so Intel only half-owns it now.)
I believe all their office space in Oregon and Arizona is owned by them.
The empty office space is costing them to much. (Score:2)