81–90 of 176 posts
The 2022 annual report says 110k+ employees. The 2021 annual report says 95k+ employees. The 2020 annual report says 80k+ employees. Seems like they have acquired quite bit in the past few years, e.g.: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/shipping-giant-maersk-cont... Shipping giant Maersk continues buying spree after best quarter ever (November 2021)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
All of this forgets that management, in capitalism, represents the shareholders. Their ONLY job is to invest as wisely as possible, and yes, that means predicting the future. Now there's 2 parts of management. There's accounting, processing orders, filling out whatever government forms need filling out, keeping up to date with new regulations, ... Sometimes this is called accounting, but generally it's called managem…
Unless of course, and I didn't check, Maersks bets on air freight, warehousing and fulfillment didn't oay off. In ehich case the C suite set a wrong strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They're in my contract, and protected under UK employment law.
>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.
You're hallucinating.
>Or you are against your own self-interests, which is illogical.
What are our interests? I have interests as an employee, but I also have interests as a customer of other companies, as a tax payer, and as a citizen generally.
A lot of the products I buy here in the UK, or inputs to them are probably transported by Maersk. I have an interest in Maersk being a well run efficient company that does a good job cheaply and reliably transporting those goods. If they have insufficient employees or investment, that jeopardises supply. If they have increased costs, that makes the goods I depend on more expensive.
It's in my interests that companies I buy products and services from are efficient and are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Also if they see an increase in demand, that they can respond to that without worrying about being locked into near-permanent employment contracts. I even have that interest as an employee, because if my company becomes ossified employing people that are under-utilised that saps their ability to invest, grow, compensate me better, or even for the company to survive.
It's also in my interests as tax payer that there is an affordable social safety net, but as an employee that there is an adequate one. Both factors are important to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So are you suggesting they No, I only answered to the previous commenter who wrote that management can't predict the future. They knew it was coming, and increasing temporarily the headcount was their plan.
Well, they did. Hence the job cutting. That you don't like that is a different topic. I don't like job cuts neither, but shipping is directly linked to the global economy. And if we go into a slow down, shipping demand slows down as well. Head count at Maersk is directly linked to that demand, so there are only so many options on the table. Shipping goes through these cycles on a regular basis, not adjusting would pu…
Where did I write that, exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Usually the only companies that have empathy for their employees, management started on the bottom, instead out of management school with their beloved MBA degrees.
> 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.
I don't buy this - not any more. These companies are going to need these employees next year, when demand picks up again.
This is pure folly of management. The problem is upper management never pays for their mistakes. I know a company that fired it's last Perl developer and their payment system was written in perl. They literslly couldn't take payment for like 2 months becaus of it. You think the guy that made this decision has lost any sleep?
This is like just in time supply chain - lets keep zero stock on hand to 'optimise'. Oh shit, we cant get shipment in time because of disruption/flood/covid. Now we are loosing money. Well, the guy that made the decision doesn't care.
What we are seeing across the west, is that companies are destoying the base of skilled middle class employees that they actually need to operate. This is happening on purpose.
After the base is destroyed, they will beg for gobernment subsidies to compete. They basically use taxoater money to pad their profit margins
> 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.
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.
If they're making record profits and have already employed decent workers, isn't the optimal strategy surely "find something profitable for them to work on"?
> 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.
Not saying that they should have kept the employees, they just keep in mind that short term greedy can come at the cost of long term greedy. I think the real problem is often executive compensation incentives short term greedy behaviors at the expense of long term greedy behaviors, so while this decision may not be in the best interest of the company I’m certain it’s in the best interest of the execs.
One alternative to hiring/firing would have been for existing staff temporarily work harder with offers of large bonuses. Maybe they tried that as well. This would only be effective in some areas of work so some hiring/firing correlating with demand would still be needed.
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.
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.