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: Sonny McWilliams who wrote (56596)	6/2/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Sonny, first on the "closure" of the DuPont Wash. facility. I read it was a layoff of 650 people, out of a total plant headcount of 2200. The people let go were assembly and test people for servers. Intel said they could contract that out to save money. The point is that, according to what I read, it was a layoff, not a plant closure. As for pulling 600 people away from Merced to go into low end work, I don't know. As far as not letting so many people go, and putting them onto low end, it's a matter of skill sets. The people they added to low end were development people, most likely. The people let go in Washington were assemblers, not development. It would be like putting the people that set up your X-ray or blood lab equipment to work on diagnosing sick people and prescribing meds for them. Not chiding you, Sonny, but to save time and posts, and I'm sounding like a broken record, but the only reason given by Intel, who is the only one qualified to comment officially on the Merced slip, is scheduling problems. Even the mighty Intel bit off more than they could chew...program management and scheduling-wise. John Hull finally came out over on "Intel". Check it out. Y'all check it out. Tony