Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 176 posts

Re: Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

#41

Post by gruez »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #35
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's a very short-term gain prioritized over long-term growth, a symptom of the cancer that is the mentality "shareholders expect infinite growth forever". But "shareholders expect infinite growth forever" directly contradicts "short-term gain prioritized over long-term growth"? Even if they prioritized long term growth that would still be "shareholders expect infinite growth forever".

> But "shareholders expect infinite growth forever" directly contradicts "short-term gain prioritized over long-term growth"? But it doesn't? Shareholders expect companies to make whatever decisions are necessary to maximize short term profits, expect those profits to be infinite, and expect this to happen every quarter, every year, in perpetuity.

The part that's contradictory and that you omitted was "short-term gain prioritized over long-term growth". While it's theoretically possible for the two to coexist, the way it's presented is as one-or-the-other proposition, which is where the contradiction comes from. If it wasn't one-or-the-other, people wouldn't getting mad over it.

Re: Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

#42

Post by lotsofpulp »

jzjsniiaj wrote: post #26
mo_42 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). So I wouldn't put these two things into one argument necessary. Then, an absolute number of profit doesn't reveal much. Maybe this seemingly huge profit is tiny compared to the effort to make it (i.e., the profit margin). As much as I'd like to see a world where we value more aspects…

> The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). If I draw parallels to personal finance, say I have a record high profitable year, would I rather assume my profits stay record high in the future and increase spending/investments OR would I ensure I have enough rainy day funds for the next inevitable slowdown (at least give me eno…

> making me wonder if it's more about manipulating stock price to a desired level.

The desired level is always higher than the what it is now. This applies to individuals, as well as groups of individuals (businessss).

Re: Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

#43

Post by matwood »

jzjsniiaj wrote: post #26
mo_42 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). So I wouldn't put these two things into one argument necessary. Then, an absolute number of profit doesn't reveal much. Maybe this seemingly huge profit is tiny compared to the effort to make it (i.e., the profit margin). As much as I'd like to see a world where we value more aspects…

> The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). If I draw parallels to personal finance, say I have a record high profitable year, would I rather assume my profits stay record high in the future and increase spending/investments OR would I ensure I have enough rainy day funds for the next inevitable slowdown (at least give me eno…

By cutting now they are building that emergency fund. They see demand dropping back to pre-COVID levels or worse. They haven't cut employees that far yet though.

Your analogy can also work here. When I have a record year I might add some extra services to my life. I see that changing and cut the services before it's a huge problem.

Re: Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

#44

Post by pjmlp »

salmonlogs wrote: post #6

> Danish shipping giant Maersk has posted earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $30.9bn for the full year ended 31 December 2022, a 57% surge from $19.6bn in 2021. > This is said to be the firm’s best-ever annual result. https://www.ship-technology.com/news/maersk-logs-record-prof... Really sad to see these companies make enormous record beating profits then months later do mass layoffs just to maintain better…

Indeed, long are the days companies would be happy just to stay on business, instead of the exponential growth utopia driven by MBA folks.

Having been in a couple of similar situations, the only loyalty worth having is with the team.

Re: Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

#45

Post by Invictus0 »

sgu999 wrote: post #39
boeingUH60 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hired in response to heightened demand. Demand falls, and they should be fired for miscalculated headcount? Sorry, but that hardly makes sense…you might as well say management must be able to see the future.

> you might as well say management must be able to see the future. Arguably they can't have ignored that a surge this big would be temporary... It's not like we suddenly discovered a massive amount of resources at our disposal to produce the goods they are transporting. EDIT: It's frankly amazing to see how much has been projected onto my comment. For the sake of transparency towards the neoliberal police, I quoted w…

So the company should ignore the needs of the market and its customers?

Arguably workers should wake up and accept that jobs are not permanent or guaranteed.

Re: Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

#46

Post by carlosjobim »

mnky9800n wrote: post #29
boeingUH60 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you suggest they keep employees around with nothing to do because of significantly reduced shipping demand? I agree with your point about getting laid off being awful, but I think this should be solved by the government having a robust social safety net (funded by taxes) so that getting laid off doesn’t cause stress. Fortunately, Denmark already scores high in this area.

Maybe companies can have like a savings account for when they don't make a lot of money, that way if they think they might not make as much then they can cover the difficult times.

Isn't it much better that the employees instead go work somewhere were they're needed? What in the world would be the reason to keep them around doing nothing? Give them better pay when they actually work and then send them on their way.

Re: Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

#47

Post by lotsofpulp »

mschuster91 wrote: post #18
ekianjo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies wonder why employees are not loyal Never heard any CEO wondering about that.

Good C-level execs actually care about staff retention and fluctuation rates. The really good ones make HR ask about departure reasons in exit interviews and act accordingly - given that each departure costs a significant amount of money in hiring and training costs, it makes sense to weed out bad mid-level managers.

> given that each departure costs a significant amount of money in hiring and training costs

For every job in every business around the world? I doubt it.

Re: Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

#48

Post by matwood »

mschuster91 wrote: post #19
matwood wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had a huge surge of demand coming out of COVID, and hired to meet that demand. That demand is gone, and they are moving their staff requirements back down closer to pre-COVID (and not even that far). What exactly were they suppose to do?

Keep the headcount as high as possible while still turning a profit so they can react on demand going up again in a short notice.

Anything done to keep headcount above necessary levels would have caused slower hiring and in turn caused the demand shock to go on even longer.

I'm curious about your solution though. How many people do they need to keep on staff that are not doing anything? How much profit are they allowed? Do they have to lose money before they are allowed to trim the workforce? Do they need to be prepared for another COVID-level demand surge?

Re: Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

#50

Post by Thaxll »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #25
salmonlogs wrote: post #6

> Danish shipping giant Maersk has posted earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $30.9bn for the full year ended 31 December 2022, a 57% surge from $19.6bn in 2021. > This is said to be the firm’s best-ever annual result. https://www.ship-technology.com/news/maersk-logs-record-prof... Really sad to see these companies make enormous record beating profits then months later do mass layoffs just to maintain better…

Do you suggest they keep employees around with nothing to do because of significantly reduced shipping demand? I agree with your point about getting laid off being awful, but I think this should be solved by the government having a robust social safety net (funded by taxes) so that getting laid off doesn’t cause stress. Fortunately, Denmark already scores high in this area.

Those 10k employees woudn't have nothing to do. Do you think every single employee are used at 95% all the time, that the head count reflect 100% of the needed workforce?
Post reply on HN