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

61–70 of 176 posts

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

#61

Post by infecto »

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.

It would be impossible to craft a rule like this that can be applied effectively. Plus the overhead of each company having to manage it. Much more reasonable to bundle it with corporate taxes and the country to manage the safety net. Ideally this would help the free flow of labor effectively.

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

#62

Post by tyingq »

chrisdbanks wrote: post #52
tyingq wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Right, and for example, contractors are often a better match for fluctuating demand rather than employees. Or diversification of market offerings to reduce seasonality. Or skill diversification for employees so they can be repositioned during low demand in one area, etc.

Or at least being up-front about the temporary nature of the employment and structuring the program to suit that. "Seasonal hires" have a different expectation.

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

#63

Post by hef19898 »

gruez wrote: post #20
mschuster91 wrote: post #17

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). And should demand pick up again in 2-3 years worth of time, they'll now have a really hard time ramping hiring back up... fucking beancounters don't learn, even as the aviation industry is right now showing just how bad this effect can get.

I'm going to go on a limb and say that the "fucking beancounters" has done more financial modeling on this decision than some armchair CFO on hn who probably haven't even seen their last quarterly statement.

Especially since people on HN eho are "tech worker" assume the, including an over exagerated importance of themselves, tech employment dynamics apply to other industries. Not that the tech employment is anything like people think is, the mass layoffs showed as much. And as soon as FAANG start hiring again, most on here would be happy to sign up again.

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

#64

Post by gruez »

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.

Okay, but you can't expect companies to keep a buffer out of their own good will. You need the government to do it. Keeping such a buffer at a per company level probably is a bad idea too, because downturns tend to be sectoral. A bigger risk pool (eg. across industries) would be far more robust. Surprise! You just invented unemployment insurance!

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

#65

Post by hef19898 »

pjmlp wrote: post #44
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.

Shipping is decidedly not a VC (as oppossed to MBA) driven hyper growth sector. It is rather directly linked to global economic growth, with only very limited means to influence demand in general.

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

#66

Post by hef19898 »

tpmx wrote: post #12
TeMPOraL wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprised to see steady increase in recent years. What are the 2019 numbers? 2020 and 2021 are the pandemic years, and Maersk should've been one of the most heavily impacted companies in the early months.

Relatively stable around 80k for 2018 and 2019. It appears they have executed a strategy to become a vertically integrated end-to-end logistics company rather than just a container shipping company. Profits during the pandemic allowed them to accelerate the change. https://qz.com/2103412/maersk-is-no-longer-just-a-shipping-c... (Have a look at that quarterly profit graph...)

Maersk went hard into the 3PL and fulfillment business, includimg hiring quite a few people from Amazon. They are in a quite interesting position for that.

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

#67

Post by bsbsinai »

Invictus0 wrote: post #45
sgu999 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Unless you are an exec I suppose - based on what I see, it seems like in good times you make money, in bad times you take responsibility and others loose their jobs, and you still make money.

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

#68

Post by gedy »

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.

I guarantee you those fired weren't all hired in past 2 years. I think we should quit with the "layoffs == trimming the fat" line.

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

#69

Post by mangosteenjuice »

simonh wrote: post #53
sgu999 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The…

>I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened.

You're not owed either of these things.

The way you write is curious. You don't really seem like someone who needs to work for a living, but you're trying to portray yourself as labor and not capital in your posts.

Or you are against your own self-interests, which is illogical.

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

#70

Post by simonh »

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…

From 2021 to 2022 Maersk increased head count by 20%. Now they're cutting it by 10%, but it's not necessarily the same workers. A 10% churn rate is pretty common. A decent chunk of the 10% cuts could well be managed through early retirement, natural leavers and voluntary redundancies.

European countries have robust rules around these things that often require companies to offer voluntary terms and such first. I think the outrage about this is almost certainly misplaced.

Post reply on HN