Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: semiconeng who wrote (168267)	7/15/2002 4:20:11 PM
From: greg s	Respond to of 186894

semi, Thanks for the insight. I've been gone since '98 and wasn't aware of these meetings. Besides, I prefer to believe that a RIF won't happen at Intel (or AMD) because I have so many friends and associates who work for both firms. BTW, I didn't mean to infer "layoffs". I agree that Intel would go with a VSP instead of a layoff. I am hoping (praying) for word of improved visibility in the CC tomorrow. Greg

To: semiconeng who wrote (168267)	7/16/2002 5:26:08 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Semi, RE: "I think intel will reinstitute it's Voluntary Separation Program, before they decide to go with any layoffs." I don't think they should do a VSP because VSPs usually take a long time and are a long process, that takes several quarters. Using Andrew's figures of 10,000, every quarter costs an extra $250M, or .04/sh. The headcount is way out of whack compared to revenues, and that costs $250M/qtr for healthy well-abled employees. $250M could be better spent towards laid off people who have unusual circumstances, or for things like extending health care. If a person gets laid off, then happens to get cancer after being laid off, but then are too sick to work, they can't get insurance after their Cobra runs out. That shouldn't be the case. In fact, I feel very strongly that large companies should lobby Congress to create "portable health care" for employees. There's no reason an employee shouldn't be able to take their health care with them. This is allowed for Long-Term Care, so it should be allowed for health care too. I think they should make cuts after giving folks adequate advance warning, but not by VSP, because that money savings could be better applied towards special circumstances. There are horror stories out there about people without insurance and that shouldn't be the case. Companies should make it a priority so it's not. That should be a company's top priority when doing layoffs. They should lobby for portable health care (i.e. where a person can take their health care coverage with them), and until that happens, they should make health insurance available to laid off workers until they get jobs, with terms that require the worker to pay for the health insur after say 2 years. But I don't think it's acceptable for companies to cut people's insurance off after Cobra runs out, especially if it's someone that got cancer. So, I'd rather see the money be placed upon sick former workers, who need it more, rather than healthy former workers. By not doing a VSP, I bet a company could save a lot of money that could instead be applied towards health care premiums. I think health care premiums should be paid for 2 years: $250M / 10,000 / $300 (family health care mo premiums) / 12 mo = 6 years, plenty of buffer. I'd rather see $83 be applied towards giving all laid off workers paid health care for two years, than providing several extra quarters that cost $250M per quarter. I think companies do layoffs incorrectly, where they give people lots of severance, but then cut dry their health care. That's backwards from what I think they should do. When an economy is bad, health care premiums should be paid for layoff workers for two years, and then after two years, a person should be able to have portable health care, say in the case of someone with cancer. Putting a cancer patient on the street without paying for their premiums is ridiculous and way too ruthless, but laying off workers and not giving them oodles of severance so that money may be applied to health care insurance for anyone that's laid off, is practical. Also, I think adult children (over 25 years old) that have illnesses should be able to get health care, elderly parents too. The story in SJMN about the son with the heart illness whose health care is at risk because his Dad got laid off, is today's reality. No excuse corporations couldn't continue premium payments and coverage, while doing so in a way that makes sense for investors. Regards, Amy J