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

51–60 of 176 posts

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

#51

Post by mnky9800n »

carlosjobim wrote: post #46
mnky9800n wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel like,

> surprise! You are probably needed elsewhere!

Is not the way to handle this kind of thing.

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

#52

Post by chrisdbanks »

tyingq wrote: post #31
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.

>Do you suggest they keep employees around with nothing to do because of significantly reduced shipping demand? It's not unheard of in the past to resort to salary cuts, reduced hours, etc, while they bridge some solution or wait out what might be temporary. There's also the notion of better planning. If you suspect, for example, a demand spike is temporary...there are ways to deal with that other than overhiring emp…

Your electricity demands probably change drastically between summer and winter. Do you not use electricity during the winter because you know you won't need as much during the summer? People are a resource just like electric. There needs to be flexibility for elasticity. This is why redundancy exists as a concept. Of course people should be compensated for elastic demand and you can of course always seek to increase your notice period to increase your security.

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

#53

Post by simonh »

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 are you suggesting they should not have hired those workers, and left that customer demand stay unsatisfied, with all the knock-on consequences for workers in other sectors? These kinds of policies just lead to ossification of the economy.

We need dynamic, responsive economies that can adapt to conditions, and we need strong protections for worker's rights and support for citizens through economic adjustments. These are not contradictory goals. A stronger more adaptive economy is better able to afford the costs of effectively managing such adaptations.

I don't think anyone unconditionally owes me a job. I don't have an unconditional claim on other people's money just because they paid me in the past. I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened.

It's not reasonable, and is seriously inefficient, to compel private companies to be government work programmes. The result is companies won't hire when they need more workers in case they get stuck with them, harming the company, workers, tax payers from reduced revenue, and the economy in general.

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

#54

Post by infecto »

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.

Just to add to the top of the thread. The solution here is safety nets paid by taxes. "Firing management" is not realistic, humans are generally short sighted and its hard to identify when things are a bubble or not. You cannot put it on the laid off employees to understand the economy well enough and for low paying jobs to have the savings to support boom/bust periods always.

Similar to health care, it is useful to have safety nets to allow for the free flow of labor.

Now where it gets sticky is you cannot apply it outside of your country so in cases like shipping, the vast majority of their employees who run the ship are from low wage developing countries.

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

#55

Post by hef19898 »

franczesko wrote: post #30
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.

"Do you suggest they keep employees around with nothing to do because of significantly reduced shipping demand?" Management should be fired for miscalculated headcount instead.

Yes, let's set the minimum requirement for management at being able to predict the future. But then what? Do you start adjusting for in two years now, risking failure? Or later?

Not every company can afford ridiculous salaries and headcounts until the next VC funding round comes through.

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

#56

Post by infecto »

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…

You are wrong, nobody knew exactly what would happen, we had ideas but did not know to an exact measure what would happen.

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

#57

Post by avidphantasm »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #32
franczesko wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do you suggest they keep employees around with nothing to do because of significantly reduced shipping demand?" Management should be fired for miscalculated headcount instead.

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.

Maybe they could cut everyone’s hours and keep more people employed? This would make surging to meet future demand spikes much more easy. Novel idea I know.

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

#58

Post by ethbr1 »

mnky9800n wrote: post #51
carlosjobim wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel like, > surprise! You are probably needed elsewhere! Is not the way to handle this kind of thing.

The difficulty is that putting the onus of reallocation on a centralized authority leads to less efficient allocation (e.g. all the problems with command economies).

Decentralized people that each make individual choices more quickly and ideally allocate unused labor where it's most needed.

... but to the broader point from sibling threads, the humane solution here is {permit companies to be agile with layoffs} + {fund strong government-provided safety nets for unemployed workers}.

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

#59

Post by hef19898 »

Thaxll wrote: post #50
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.

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?

Assuming the 10k includes crew, when their vessel isn't used those crew members would have absolutely nothing to do at all in fact.

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

#60

Post by gruez »

avidphantasm wrote: post #57
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.

Maybe they could cut everyone’s hours and keep more people employed? This would make surging to meet future demand spikes much more easy. Novel idea I know.

That's just going to cause all the high performers to jump ship (heh), because they can find a new job that doesn't have cut hours.
Post reply on HN