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

121–130 of 176 posts

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

#121

Post by FirmwareBurner »

jcbrand wrote: post #88
n4r9 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

It's possible to make record profits one year and a loss the next if you don't react early enough to trends.

Pretty much this. Nokia had it's record year of profits the year after the iPhone launched even though the writing was already on the wall. It's easy to go from winner to looser in a snap with no way to turn back and hiring even more people won't help if the ship is heading towards the iceberg with full steam ahead.

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

#122

Post by AmVess »

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.

If your solution is "more tax", then your solution is both lazy and stupid.

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

#123

Post by seymore_12 »

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…

Top ocean carriers (including Maersk) are mature and well established organizations. For what concerns their core activities, that is transporting of containers from A to B across oceans, short sea and occasional inland, they are Pareto efficient [1]

The surge in the transportation services demand during COVID couldn't be resolved by additional hiring and was offset by increase in freight rates, hence the enormous profits. They couldn't resolve surge demand by hiring, as their bottleneck was and still is the land infrastructure, sea ports, terminal (in)efficiency, inland transport to which they have little control of.

Maersk decided to become vertically integrated carrier and started acquiring various companies, including last mile delivery services, custom's brokers, air freight capacity etc. This, in my opinion, contributed to the increase in the headcount.

Other carriers followed the Maersk acquisition spree...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

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

#124

Post by AmVess »

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.

These are capitalist ventures, not socialist ventures. The goal is to make money, not become a warehouse for dead weight.

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

#126

Post by vivekd »

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.

Ontario Canada's NDP gov't tried this approach in the 90s for the public service in response to a budget deficit. They called it Ray days. The approach was very unpopular with public servants and the public generally. It was one of the reasons for the party's loss of influence.

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

#127

Post by ggrothendieck »

The HN news title seems inaccurate. This is not necessarily a drop in demand nor is it applicable to all shipping as also suggested by the title.

The article suggests it is an oversupply of container ships with very few ships scrapped as opposed to demand: "The industry invested heavily in new container ships during and after the pandemic to meet strong demand and benefit from record freight rates. A large number of new ships entered the market since the summer with no signs of idling or scrapping, said Clerc."

Furthermore just because container ships were over ordered does not mean that other types of ships were so it is misleading to just refer to shipping in the title. It should be "container shipping".

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

#128

Post by McDyver »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #118
McDyver wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stil…

Not necessarily. They can be profitable without being greedy.

In this case they could have just said "we don't have capacity to fulfill all new demands, we can happily run at full capacity, and charge more if needed". Other companies could have taken up the slack, new businesses popping up, etc. Instead, they recruited people who prioritised this new job, just to be let go.

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

#129

Post by FirmwareBurner »

McDyver wrote: post #128
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 stil…

Not necessarily. They can be profitable without being greedy. In this case they could have just said "we don't have capacity to fulfill all new demands, we can happily run at full capacity, and charge more if needed". Other companies could have taken up the slack, new businesses popping up, etc. Instead, they recruited people who prioritised this new job, just to be let go.

>Not necessarily. They can be profitable without being greedy.

Sure, but then they'll be overtaken by their competitors who will rake in more profits as they don't mind being greedy, and your shareholders won't appreciate that.

Greed and capitalism are basically synonymous, as the end game of capitalism is to accumulate as much wealth and market cap as possible, at the expense of your competition, until you own the whole pie.

Preaching to companies "just be OK with being a little poorer this time", while their competitors are using every dirty trick in the book to get ahead, will never work.

If you want a level playing field for everyone to not be greedy, it must come from regulations that hold companies accountable, not expecting companies to voluntarily act in favor of their labor force out of the kindness of their hearts, as that will seldom happen.

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

#130

Post by interactivecode »

simonh wrote: post #83
mangosteenjuice wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>>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. 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 s…

The whole point is that they could have changed nothing and still prices would have stayed the same because they made a lot of profit in the years before.

They could have paid by having less profit. Instead employees are paying by losing their jobs.

This would have been a totally different discussion if they were making a loss. If you ask me a good business keeps a safety net when times a good and uses their safety net when times are bad. Only when those savings run out they should consider letting people go.

Post reply on HN