Intel

If you make good contributions, you are usually recognized.

There are opportunities to really test yourself and your capabilities due to the very challenging environment. It's the New York City of places to work: if you can make it at Intel, you can make it anywhere.

Pay is very good if you stay long enough. The relatively new switch from stock options to restricted stock options (RSUs) is excellent (for Engineers), like another bonus on top of the annual big EB and the semi-annual ECBP bonuses. The bonuses are very good (for Engineers).

Also important is that the large bonuses (and some say low salaries) allow for big compensation in good years and job preservation in bad years. Intel does not lay off engineers – no layoffs during the dot-com bubble burst.

Very little politics; people don't have time for it. Arguments are based on data, not personalities for the most part (though there are always some bad personalities like everywhere).

Intel is also quite serious about business ethics, green philosophy, and safety.

Very stressful work if you work in a fab plant. Very large responsibility, workload, and very high expectations.

(But gratifying when you're handling it. Will build self-pride and confidence.)

Constant incoming work from multiple directions requires superior time management. It feels like you're on call 24/7. It is difficult to make a good work-life balance.

Some Engineering Group Leaders seem to favor process engineers over equipment engineers.

(My annual performance rating seemed to sometimes be based on who my boss was rather than my performance; the same performance would get an OK/Good rating from some GLs and high raves from others.)

Engineering Group Leaders were pretty good overall. The Supervisors in charge of the technicians were generally very poor - disengaged from what the techs actually do or their work habits.

This often made difficult situations since the Engineers drove the daily work priorities but had no formal authority over the techs.

Also, Engineering Group Leaders often recognize high-impact contributions (new process recipes, etc.) but neglect recognition for longer-term efforts to repair and improve the infrastructure that allows and enables the high-impact contributions to occur.