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

111–120 of 176 posts

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

#111

Post by mstipetic »

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…

Did they tell these people they’re here only for two years when hiring them?

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

#112

Post by gruez »

reg_dunlop wrote: post #71
gruez wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought there was decreased demand. Or is that decreased demand for this company only?

Companies are run with varying levels of competence, so it's not strange to see the weakest companies lay off first. Adding to the above, better capitalized companies can use this opportunity to poach high performers from weaker companies.

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

#114

Post by typon »

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.

You can hire contractors and temporary workers. This isn't a new concept.

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

#115

Post by ricardobayes »

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.

Spain also, you get a relatively high portion of your salary (80%?) for 2 years if you're fired/laid off.

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

#116

Post by mistrial9 »

people in the civilized West might have forgotten the long and standard history of slavery for labor. Rome was a slave state. Lots of post-Rome empires have traded slaves. Slaves do labor.

Many of the comments here immediately and unequivocally supporting management are a reminder that the veneer of civility is soon lost when money is at stake.

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

#117

Post by mattas »

There's an interesting narrative forming in global trade around nearshoring/reshoring. The framing is often around manufacturing moving from China to Mexico. News like this supports that narrative. While it's somewhat clear that manufacturing is moving out of China, it's less clear where it's going.

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

#118

Post by FirmwareBurner »

McDyver wrote: post #101
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming there is some ebb and flow in demand, they should keep employees around with nothing to do, yes. Disagree. Especially if they knew they were hired for a surge that would end.

Then they should have hired contractors for the specific timeframe, no? Otherwise it's just corporate greed: we know we'll have a surge in demand, so we buy new vessels and containers and manpower to last us 2 years; we make huge profits, discard this surplus and blame it on the "new normal" (FTA)

>Otherwise it's just corporate greed

By that logic, every business around us operates on corporate greed since their sole purpose is to increase their profits and bring down costs, not to be a UBI jobs program.

Sure, certain large and profitable companies with sizable market caps could easily stomach having even more idle workers coasting all day for great paychecks, with a corresponding reduction in profits and still stay afloat, but why would they?

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

#119

Post by randomdata »

roomey wrote: post #9
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…

I'm not sure why you are getting downvoted as you are totally correct. It's a case of rules for thee and not for me. It is an uneven power balance between corporations and workers.

> It is an uneven power balance between corporations and workers.

Then the solution is obvious: Workers should incorporate and sell their work under that corporate banner.

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

#120

Post by avslinev »

sokoloff wrote: post #99
bsbsinai wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start building an emergency fund when you see an emergency is already too late. Cutting an expense or two in hardship is fine but the problem is after one windfall taking on recurring spend of extra services assumes a windfall to recur too. Isn't this similar to living pay check to paycheck? If this is someone else's personal finance I'd say it's none of my business, but if it's likened to a public company, I'd say i…

If you believe a public company is mismanaged, you should not invest in it. If you believe it’s seriously mismanaged and others don’t yet realize that, you could even consider shorting it. Others who believe the company is well-managed by looking at the forecasts and deciding to return to staffing levels still well above their 2021 (but lower than last month) will continue to hold (or even buy) the shares. This diffe…

The point looks to be diluted as the thread progressed. It went from questioning potential shortcomings in the status quo to pointing that one could profit off the status quo, and hence justifying it.

The point imo was how many companies can be potentially overly aggressive during a bull market/bubble e.g. over hire, and seemingly have no accountability for a handful decision makers affecting thousands of people. Mass layoffs can have serious consequences on the people and the economy.

Yes, the employees should expect it and be prepared, and yes, share holders can profit off it, however to give an example there are precedents like the mortgage crisis where there were regulations imposed preventing companies taking unnecessary risks and causing major economic events. So, it isn't that outlandish to question if a (many) companies took too many unnecessary risks.

Post reply on HN