News & Analysis
Comment
Clive.Hendricks
I am sure that security was a concern, but there was also a practical reason. ...
phoenixdave
"I guess the older I get the more cynical I get.".....Glad to see I'm not the ...
Obama visit to Intel facility irks workers told to stay home
Sylvie Barak
1/25/2012 6:09 PM EST
SAN FRANCISCO--While President Obama’s visit to Intel’s manufacturing facility in Chandler, Ariz., may be a huge boon to the chip firm, it is slightly less of a boost to over 1,500 workers who have been asked to stay home for security reasons, without pay, during the day of his visit.
Disgruntled contract workers have complained to local television media that the loss of a day’s pay is significant to them, though Intel’s spokespeople have brushed it off as having nothing but “short term impact.”
While some may assume that one day of unpaid leave is hardly something worth complaining about, in the context of President Obama’s drive to showcase “American Productivity” –laid out in his Tuesday night State of the Union address—it is a little ironic and unfortunate.
The President has put a high premium on American jobs, telling the nation America was “as competitive as we’ve ever been,” and laying out a blueprint for keeping and boosting employment in the U.S. Indeed, part of the President’s plan includes eliminating tax cuts for companies who invest in jobs abroad, while offering a 20 percent tax credit to companies moving jobs back stateside.
Intel’s massive $5-billion manufacturing facility in Chandler--due to be completed in 2013--certainly qualifies as part of that effort, but with Intel declaring another quarter of record profits and revenue last week, is it really too much trouble for the tech giant to give its blue collar employees a paid day off?
*update* An Intel spokesperson has said the contract workers will have the hours of work lost today rescheduled, and thereby make up any lost day of pay. He compared the situation to a day of bad weather or other natural impediment which would have halted work for the day.
Disgruntled contract workers have complained to local television media that the loss of a day’s pay is significant to them, though Intel’s spokespeople have brushed it off as having nothing but “short term impact.”
While some may assume that one day of unpaid leave is hardly something worth complaining about, in the context of President Obama’s drive to showcase “American Productivity” –laid out in his Tuesday night State of the Union address—it is a little ironic and unfortunate.
The President has put a high premium on American jobs, telling the nation America was “as competitive as we’ve ever been,” and laying out a blueprint for keeping and boosting employment in the U.S. Indeed, part of the President’s plan includes eliminating tax cuts for companies who invest in jobs abroad, while offering a 20 percent tax credit to companies moving jobs back stateside.
Intel’s massive $5-billion manufacturing facility in Chandler--due to be completed in 2013--certainly qualifies as part of that effort, but with Intel declaring another quarter of record profits and revenue last week, is it really too much trouble for the tech giant to give its blue collar employees a paid day off?
*update* An Intel spokesperson has said the contract workers will have the hours of work lost today rescheduled, and thereby make up any lost day of pay. He compared the situation to a day of bad weather or other natural impediment which would have halted work for the day.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
Bert22306
1/25/2012 7:46 PM EST
Wow. What a bad policy for Intel!
If they wre truly worried about "security," then it was incumbent upon them to make this a day of paid leave for the workers. This last-minute "rescheduling," where presumably managers may find it okay to have the workers show up over the weekend, is hardly a fix to their blunder.
I've always wondered about what goes on inside the heads of managers and corporate executives. This is just another example.
Sign in to Reply
daleste
1/25/2012 11:11 PM EST
Well, at least Obama is "doing very well." He didn't lose a day of pay and he got us to pay for his trip.
Sign in to Reply
kdboyce
1/26/2012 1:16 AM EST
Let's see if I have this right.
Intel's non-unionized workers can't show up for a visit by the President, but he can have all the GM union workers and supporters around his as in this Sept. 2011 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT8jUtgkGsY.
Can anyone honestly say the open air setting in Detroit was more secure than that which Intel and the CIA/FBI could muster within Intel's own facilities and with it's own employees?
I think not!
Sign in to Reply
Ezat
1/30/2012 7:08 PM EST
Can you cary firearm openly in Detriot? in AZ you can.
Sign in to Reply
ronk2011
1/26/2012 6:04 AM EST
I do not know the whole story but I think we need to get the fact straight:
1. The original article from ktar.com mentions that they are construction workers led by Hoffman Construction. Why are they called "Intel workers"? The article does not said if the workers are Intel full timers, temps (assigned to the site by outside companies), or visitors. EE times should verify the source.
2. Who is responsible to do the background check of contractors? I do not know.
3. An analogy. You have a house cleaned daily by X from company Y. You have an in-law visit next month on the very same day so you reschedule it in advance. Do you still pay for that service?
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
1/26/2012 4:45 PM EST
Exactly. The construction workers are employees of Hoffman Construction Company, not Intel. The article I read yesterday also quoted an Intel spokesperson saying the workers would simply work a different day to make up for having missed work due to the presidential visit -- like Sylvie's article said, just as they would do if they missed a day due to bad weather.
It's irresponsible for an EE Times reporter to chastise Intel for reporting record profits last quarter and asking "is it really too much trouble for the tech giant to give its blue collar employees a paid day off?" They are NOT Intel employees.
Sign in to Reply
kdboyce
1/26/2012 7:03 PM EST
The article should have clearly spelled out that the crowd was Hoffman Construction workers, not Intel workers. That would have stopped a lot of confusion, at least on my part. And the original article at Ktar.com should have been referenced so the reader could get all the info then published.
However, in fairness to Sylvie, the Ktar.com article is mushy about keeping the facts straight. It starts out referencing construction workers, as in "some construction workers said he is costing them a day's pay. More than 1,500 workers were asked to stay home for security reasons as the president toured the future site of a $5-billion Intel manufacturing facility in Chandler. The workers will not be paid for the forced day off."
Then the quote from the Intel spokesman makes it seem as it is mostly Intel workers being referred to.
Sign in to Reply
SylvieBarak
1/26/2012 11:33 PM EST
Well, I did link the Ktar story, but, yes, absolutely I should have been more specific about them being contract workers for Hoffman. I think I was a little confused too the first time I read it... and when I called Intel, they didn't exactly put me straight. They just said, "yes, we sent them home for security reasons, no big deal, it's the same as a weather day... they'll make up the time on another day" - so, that's why I was a little confused too. They didn't exactly jump to tell me it wasn't Intel workers!
Sign in to Reply
SylvieBarak
1/26/2012 11:49 PM EST
Fair enough. But Intel did send them home. And they don't get to choose the day they have to work to make up for it. And since it was Intel sending them home... Intel could have compensated them in my opinion. Even if they are contract workers.
Sign in to Reply
ronk2011
1/27/2012 12:00 PM EST
I still think this story is overblown...
a. Ktar story mentioned "some workers". I assume that there are more than two. How many are they? 3, 10, 20? If it is big in number, other media should have pick up the story. EE Times show a picture of many workers. Are they the "construction workers"?
b. Notice that this is about "overtime" pay. These workers have been working more than 40 hours that week.
c. "Intel did send them home". I'm trying to figure out the communication here. Did Intel and Hoffman Construction know about the visit at least a week in advance? when did the raffle happen? Did Hoffman schedule the workers to work that day and in the last minute change its mind? There are so many holes in the story.
d. I do not think Intel should compensate them if it is just a schedule work. It would not be fair to Intel own employee, and to other construction workers (that probably did not get a shift that day), or for other workers in that city.
Sign in to Reply
ronk2011
1/26/2012 6:26 AM EST
I admire Intel who maintains its fabs presence in US. Fab employs manufacturing jobs and it employs many. How many other US tech companies could say that?
Qualcomm is fabless. Apple is fabless. Even Cypress and AMD closed their US fabs (because of cost) and outsourced it to outside of the country. TSMC, UMC, and SMIC are the giant players in semiconductor fab and all of their fabs are in Asia.
I have once read a presentation from a manager of a semiconductor company. Maintaining a fab in US is more expensive than outsourcing it to SMIC. And that does not consider cynical chip demand and the need to upgrade the fab equipment.
So, I appreciate Intel's effort to keep its fabs in US.
Sign in to Reply
PJames
1/26/2012 3:35 PM EST
AMD Foundries "Global Foundries" is building a new Fab in U.S. Samsung, certainly a "giant" now in foundry business makes parts for Apple in their U.S. fab.
Actually, the U.S. is still doing quite well in the chip making business. There was a recent article hear that had stats for worldwide chip production. One might be surprised at the U.S. production.
Sign in to Reply
phoenixdave
1/26/2012 6:37 AM EST
Although a bit embarrassing, I think there is likely more information not made public related to the story than what we have been told.
Besides, since Intel' fabs are about the only new commercial and residential construction that has occurred in the Phoenix area in the last 3 years, the workers should just be happy the have work!
Sign in to Reply
Clive.Hendricks
1/26/2012 11:33 AM EST
One thing missing is that Intel allowed ~2,000 employees to take the afternoon off (with pay) to attend his speech.
Sign in to Reply
SylvieBarak
1/26/2012 11:34 PM EST
That's not exactly "an afternoon off" - but yes, you do have a bit of a point, I concede you that, Clive ;)
Sign in to Reply
phoenixdave
1/26/2012 12:19 PM EST
Now if these were contract workers, they worked for and were paid by the contractor's company, not by Intel. So why is Intel getting all the heat?
Sign in to Reply
SylvieBarak
1/26/2012 11:36 PM EST
Because Intel didn't bother to say they weren't Intel workers when we spoke to them and asked why they sent workers home with no pay? I could see from Ktar that they were construction workers, but when I spoke to Intel and asked, I was told they had been sent home for security reasons and would make the day up another time. Intel could have said "they're not our workers", but didn't. Fair enough though...
Sign in to Reply
chipmonk
1/27/2012 2:52 PM EST
beware of casual bloggers and fly by night aggregators masquerading as responsible journalists !
Sign in to Reply
phoenixdave
1/29/2012 8:18 PM EST
@chipmonk - Journalism has changed significantly with the growth of the WWW and the ability for people to provide analysis and opinions. Major news networks regularly quote "bloggers" as reputable sources for information, with no establishment of their credentials as a journalist. I think it's the responsibility of the reader of the information to judge relevancy or bias. I know many experienced "responsible journalist" that are so biased to one side or another that impartiality is no longer present in their reporting. So lumping people into "groups" and implying that all people in the group are the same is certainly not providing an unbiased, responsible opinion.
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
1/27/2012 3:39 PM EST
The real sad statement is that anyone felt the need to send 1,500 workers home to ensure the security of our president. That's an incredibly sad statement about our society and politics these days - that we have so little trust in ourselves that it's better to send people home than allow them to be around when the president visits.
Sure I and a lot of people don't agree with some or all of what he's done. But that's part of what we're about. We elect someone and we're supposed to understand that if our guy doesn't get elected, well that's part of the process and we should still do our best to get good stuff done, not spend all the time and energy bad mouthing and threatening.
A major founding tenet of this country is lack of trust in the government. That's why we have three branches. That's why we have elections. But another founding tenet is to respect the system and work with the system to get stuff done and to work to improve the system, not to tear it down if we don't get our way.
A lot of the feedback here centers around the fact that these were not Intel workers. Does that make them less important? They're building Intel. They're contributing to our economy.
Whether I voted for him or not, I'd still like an opportunity to see the president speak in person and I'd still like an opportunity to get some spotlight on my work. If I were a construction worker, I too would like an opportunity to get some spotlight on my work. They may not have worked directly for Intel directly, but Intel would not be building fabs in this country without third party construction workers.
Sign in to Reply
C VanDorne
1/30/2012 10:15 AM EST
Some good points, Duane. But I'd say that there is a sadder statement behind yours: That is that despite this poorly executed instance, security measures like this are necessary just to keep a president alive these days. And the reason for that is where in lies the true sadness: The presidency itself holds so much power. We as Americans have to start asking ourselves if it is good that one man should have enough power to (sighting just one example that involves American jobs, but there are numerous others) single handedly nix a massive job-creating oil pipeline for fuel that his country desperately needs, brought to us from a nearby country that likes us (for now), and would have a positive effect on gas prices very quickly.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
1/30/2012 6:05 PM EST
Duane, possibly I read too much into this, but from the start I figured that whoever made this decision to send X employees home did so to make a point to the Pres. The security part being only an excuse.
So, I did not read anything "sad" in any of this, except maybe that upper management can get away with such pettiness.
I guess the older I get the more cynical I get.
Sign in to Reply
phoenixdave
2/1/2012 7:33 AM EST
"I guess the older I get the more cynical I get.".....Glad to see I'm not the only one...
Sign in to Reply
Clive.Hendricks
2/1/2012 1:13 PM EST
I am sure that security was a concern, but there was also a practical reason. The event was held on the construction site, to highlight the fact that Intel is building factories in the US.
Sign in to Reply
masher
1/30/2012 4:56 PM EST
There is no such thing as a bad weather day in Chandler, even up here in Prescott a bad weather day is waiting an hour or two for the snow to melt.
Obama knows not what he speaks nor preaches, he's ready to send billions of dollars worth of US GPS jobs down the tube for lightsquareds failed cellular network.
My thoughts are that the jobs of the american workers are still more important than one man even if that one man is the president.
Sign in to Reply
motti2
1/30/2012 11:04 PM EST
Sylvie,
having worked at Intel, and knowing how fair they are to THEIR employees, you are amusing here. Kickboxing into efes (zero) hoping for controversy where there is none.
Contractors for construction at a company site, are the Contractor's employees, and are not paid by intel ( directly ). The construction contractor can pay their employees to watch the president's speech, but that is the construction contracting company's decision.
Intel has always been a fair, even excellent employer. Even in the holy land !
Sign in to Reply
resistion
1/31/2012 1:18 AM EST
Intel does pay the contractor to pay the contracted workers, so can virtually decide when they can work. Yet Intel asked the contractors to stay home (probably initially want to save that day's contract cost) while letting Intel's own salaried (they're paid for that day anyway) employees attend?
Sign in to Reply
agk
1/31/2012 7:54 AM EST
I heard from the circle of engineers working at major cities that Intel is highly calculative in their pay structure and pay policies. That is why they are able to run their fab in US.
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
2/1/2012 6:08 AM EST
Have you forgotten what happened to Gabrielle Giffords a year or so ago?
Sign in to Reply