Intel security costs rose after CEO, other execs got threats over diversity push

Intel has put its money where its mouth is on diversifying its workforce — and the company has paid for it in other ways.

The Santa Clara chip maker’s board in 2016 “determined to enhance the personal security for [its] CEO and certain other listed officers in response to specific Intel-related incidents and threats against those officers and, in some cases, members of their families,” according to its proxy statement released Thursday.

Last year, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich said he and his leadership team had received threats “around our position on diversity and inclusion.” The position that prompted threats? In 2015, Intel committed $300 million to building a more diverse workforce within the next five years.

At the time, Krzanich said the company would use the money not only to hire more women and minorities at Intel, but to encourage more women and minorities to enter the tech industry.

“People worry that as a white man, you’re kind of under siege to a certain extent,” Krzanich said last April on stage with the Rev. Jesse Jackson at the PUSHTech 2020 conference in San Francisco. “There’s been a bit of resistance … We stand up there and just remind everybody it’s not an exclusive process. We’re not bringing in women or African-Americans or Hispanics in exclusion to other people. We’re actually just trying to bring them in and be a part of the whole environment.”

Because of the threats, Intel spent more than $2 million on Krzanich’s security in 2016, according to the proxy. That’s up from less than $40,000 the company spent on his security the previous year, Bloomberg points out. The 2016 costs included $1.86 million for personal security for the chief executive plus $275,200 for security for his residence.

“Intel believes these are appropriate expenses for the benefit of the company that arise out of our executives’ employment responsibilities and that are necessary to their job performance,” an Intel spokeswoman told SiliconBeat in response to an emailed request for comment Thursday. “We’re not commenting or elaborating beyond what is in the Proxy.”

Other executives the company listed security costs for were Venkata Renduchintala, who is president of Intel’s Internet of Things business. His security services cost $944,800. Security costs for Stacy Smith, the executive vice president who oversees manufacturing, operations and sales, totaled $309,900.

After all the costs, how did Intel do in its goal to diversify its workforce? According to its 2016 diversity report, it has achieved pay parity for women and minorities. Last year, its share of female employees climbed to 25.8 percent, up 2.3 percentage points from 2014. It also said its “diverse hiring” reached 45.1 percent.

 

Photo: Intel CEO Brian Krzanich on the set of “America’s Greatest Makers,” an Intel-backed TV show, in March 2016. The company spent more on his personal security in 2016 compared to the previous year. (Associated Press)

 

Tags: , , , ,

 

Share this Post



 
 
 
  • Lil25

    Intel seems to do a relatively good job of bringing women in. The problem is, they don’t do a good job retaining them, especially in the most esteemed divisions. The reason is obvious: work/life balance is atrocious at Intel. Especially after last year’s layoffs, they are so short staffed and people are working so much that a lot of the engineers are actually getting physically sick from the stress of it. It’s bad enough for single white guys, but employees with families, especially mothers, really don’t stand much chance in that kind of environment.

    • Bopper

      This is simply reality in the fast-paced world of technology. Is Intel guilty of over-working their employees? In some cases, sure. Same as other chip vendors, software co.’s, any organization in a clock-driven environment where a product release on time means success and a slip could cost millions of dollars. If that’s too harsh you can always consider working for the government.

      • Lil25

        Maybe men should step up and take care of the kids they helped create? Maybe they should have to work AND take care of the kids and do all the housework too!

    • discountbrains .

      Maybe that’s because Intel has slipped behind in some areas. I have some stock in a chip co that might be taking over in the next big thing with something Intel never thought of. The co has been working on it several years before the tech people heard of it.

    • BC

      But, But, but women..are supposed to be able to handle those pressures–it’s why they are demanding equal pay.

      This new society we live in has been teaching this for years in the education system that ‘men and women’ are the same and ‘gender is merely a social construct’

  • Field Dog

    So White males that devoted their career to Intel are not getting promotions or even lost their jobs.
    Pity the White male that is looking for employment with Intel. He will be passed over, even if he has the qualifications that exceed all others.
    This is Fact. Ask Human Resource for Intel’s’ recent hired list in the last 2 years.

  • Transsubstantial

    Intel cut its workforce 11% in 2016. It absolutely is a racist and sexist policy of exclusion.

    • Bopper

      Oh, really? And you base this on exactly what?

      • Transsubstantial

        If the workforce shrinks and at the same time the company is purposefully increasing the share of women and minorities, then by definition they are firing white males. It’s a racist and sexist policy.

    • rightislight

      how is a workforce reduction racist and/or sexist?

      • Transsubstantial

        The CEO claims it isn’t exclusionary, that they’re creating more opportunity for women and minorities. But they are reducing the workforce, they are reducing opportunities overall. The only way to increase the share of women and minorities when the total number of workers is falling is to target non-women and non-minorities for firing.

        • rightislight

          Your argument makes no sense. Workforce reduction is a completely different thing than hiring women and minorities equitably for other new jobs. You clearly know very little about high tech and the various businesses and skill sets required.

          • Transsubstantial

            I can only explain it to you, I can’t understand it for you.
            If the workforce is 70 white and 30 minority.
            They fire 20 whites and hire 10 minority.
            It becomes 50 white, 40 minority.
            How did opportunities expand for white people?

    • Lil25

      No. But, it is ageist.

      • Transsubstantial

        It might wholly be a policy of firing higher paid employees who are more white and male, and the CEO is trying to win brownie points by claiming it’s a diversity initiative. But all that did was add racism and sexism to his ageism.

  • rightislight

    More from the tolerant left… who’s surprised?

  • discountbrains .

    Yet more warfare against the white male. In the only account given about Bill O’Reilly’s activities I heard sounded like he did Nothing wrong. This woman supposedly didn’t sue; I suppose she didn’t like it, but Bill didn’t do anything wrong. Males have frequently been subjected to terrible situations through decades. Males have often been discriminated against; yet, they don’t complain.

    • BC

      Maybe they should start

  • BC

    And yet, diversity of thought is still unacceptable.

  • parabellum1

    I used to work there. The assault on old white males is true. HR policies came into play such that URM’s (Intel term for under-represented minorities) were protected against disciplinary actions (performance-related). It was subtle, but real in as much that a “poor review” on a URM was challenged intensely and often overturned before the review cycle roll-ups were passed up the chain. But if a white male had performance issues and was written up as such, no push-back ever occurred – it was simply accepted. The outcome of all of this was to treat URM’s differently than white males, often dismissing the critical evaluation of a low performing URM, and turning to managers to “find someone else” to assign the low performance review to.

  • parabellum1

    Thanks for deleting my post mods. I brought the truth and per the liberal script, I get censored. Intel does have very biased agenda and it clearly works against white males. Period.

  • worldtraveler

    Has anyone ever stopped to consider what employment/hiring practices have been in place, on an historical basis? In the past, companies hired mostly white males, who “fit into” the predominantly white male cultures, in several industries. Women were excluded, as were minorities, based upon not just lack of skills, but also spurious factors, such as women were prone to emotion, bound to get pregnant and leave the company, while minorities simply were deemed to be intellectually inferior of performing.

    How do you think women and minorities felt about these historical exclusionary hiring practices that, clearly, were discriminatory? Why do many white males believe that anything done to rectify past discriminatory practices, against women and minorities, suddenly, becomes racist and anti-white?

    It’s as if white males believe that every job, in every company/industrial sector, somehow, belongs to them, by virtue of their being white only. There should be no jobs that “belong” to anyone, regardless of their race, religion, sexual preference, etc.

    Furthermore, for a company to remain successful and to continue being profitable, it hardly seems plausible that it would jeopardize its future, simply to be a more diverse workplace. It would be sensible to expand its workforce to consider, on a merit basis, all persons – – whether they be white, black, yellow, brown, male, female, transgender.

 
 
css.php