Intel make approx 500 redundant

[Sync]

There's a global downturn. All private companies are looking to reduce costs. Staff is a cost, especially when offset by a drop in demand. There was no trick here, this was announced well in advance of the Lisbon treaty. If you've read Jim O'Hara's interviews, then you'll have read the one where he said clearly there were 14 reasons to come to Ireland when they did that made us stand out. Now there are only 2 remaining. Our Corp tax rate and our relationship in Europe.

So in Intel's case, You need to keep in mind that they can leave when they want, move to a country that will throw grants at them and have a much cheaper workforce. It's more a case of being happy they're staying at all and providing employment directly and indirectly to thousands rather than getting bent out of shape over natural corporate behavior.

[Digout]

A few were let go from Microsoft this week also, not sure what the number was though.

[eskerman]

Market forces all working away in the background, companies have to trim back overheads to manage downturns, Intels of this world no different to the corner shop, I don't think you would see an Intel pulling up its roots from Ireland in the short-medium term, as it would take years to relocate that size of a plant, 10yrs perhaps..?? Not to say they wouldn't, reduce to 50% workforce would have a significant impact and would trigger the end of that line of manufacturer in this country for many years.

I think these are natural cyclical events and there is nothing any government can really do with the Irish model..That corporation tax is perhaps the only one left, and I understand Mr Obama is trying to bring the troops home now...Intel may end up back in LA..?

[controller]

It has got alot to do with Lisbon. We were told to vote yes to jobs and it seems there are never ending reports of job losses.
Intel CEO told us to vote yes as it is vital to our economy and he also said that Intel wanted to be in a country who kept its good reputation on the European front. Well we did that and now the same CEO is letting go more staff than had been said and there seems to be more to come. He was part of the charge for a yes vote but now his company are doing exactly the opposite as what we were told a yes vote would do.

I thought that his argument was more to do with

"Intel admits overturning EU fine will be tricky

Intel admits overturning eu fine will be tricky - The Inquirer

[molloyjh]

It has got alot to do with Lisbon. We were told to vote yes to jobs and it seems there are never ending reports of job losses.
Intel CEO told us to vote yes as it is vital to our economy and he also said that Intel wanted to be in a country who kept its good reputation on the European front. Well we did that and now the same CEO is letting go more staff than had been said and there seems to be more to come. He was part of the charge for a yes vote but now his company are doing exactly the opposite as what we were told a yes vote would do.

Why do opponents to Lisbon keep trotting this crap out.

1. This was announced long before the referendum in October so has nothing to do with Lisbon.

2. Yes to Jobs was the phrase used by our particularly inept political parties. That phrase itself does not say that there will be an increase in employment and that suddenly people will be getting new jobs left right and centre. It was aimed at the idea that if we voted No there was a possibility of losing even more jobs than if we voted Yes. So Yes to Jobs meant Yes to Less Unemployment rather than Yes to More Employment. Retaining jobs, not creating them. Where people got this notion that anyone ever thought Lisbon would create jobs in the middle of an extremely serious recession is utterly beyond me. I can't fathom how anyone could be stupid enough to believe that. Yet here we have people saying that they thought that's what was being said!?

3. Even dissregarding both of the above the Lisbon Treaty has yet to be implemented so could not have had an impact yet either way.

[KingKane]

Lisbon is over.