Live data from Hacker News

Maersk to cut 10k jobs as shipping demand drops

reuters.com

131–140 of 176 posts

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

#131

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.

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

Wow, that's very generous. In Austria you usually get unemployment 50-60% of your wage for about 6 months depending how many years you worked.

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

#132
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…

Should retailers hire more people during holiday season? Or theme parks during summer vacation?

No they should not. They should manage their headcount in a way that people can have stable employment year round.

If that means during Christmas your checkout line takes longer so be it. I also want a job year round, why wouldn’t someone else deserves that?

This is not a conversation about amount of work vs number of people. Its amount of work vs pay.

If there really is only work to do 2 months out of the year, then they should pay 600% of a regular monthly salary.

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

#133
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This layoff is due to market trends not company performance. So unless they are not telling the truth it has nothing to do with how strong this company is.

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

#134
post #54

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.

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…

Yes you can apply it to outside your country. However even though they make big profits they don’t want to.

They could just apply the same pay, safeguards and social support to employees of low wage countries that their Danish colleagues receive. Remember that your countries rules about pay, leave and social security are minimums, and your employer is choosing not to give you more than the minimum.

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

#135

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)

> Then they should have hired contractors for the specific timeframe, no?

No. Knowing that the downturn is inevitably coming (because it always does) is not the same as knowing when the downturn is coming.

That means the outrage in your last paragraph is rather misplaced.

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

#136
post #64

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.

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!

Yes you can expect companies to a buffer. It starts by questioning layoffs like this. Because they should have depleted the buffer first before layoffs. If after that layoffs still happen the gov should have a second layer of supports in place. Because indeed like you said if a whole sector has a downturn its difficult for someone to find a new job.

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

#137

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.

Well because clearly the board isn’t great at anticipating market fluctuations, so better keep people around for when demand picks up again.

Also its about 10% of employees right, that means if you give the whole company 1 day off every two weeks. Everyone who would have a full workload again. Googles 20% was about double that

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

#138

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.

Was it miscalculated? If shipping demand is substantially higher in year X than it is on year X+1, the it sounds like having a larger workforce in the former than the latter is the correct headcount calculation.

Think of it this way: if Maersk didn't expand headcount just so that they could avoid layoffs later, then people wouldn't have had jobs in 2022. Consider * 5,000 people working in year X and in X+1. * 10,000 people working in year X and 5,000 people working in year X+1

Which was the better situation for workers and society at large?

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

#139
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Yes you can expect companies to a buffer. It starts by questioning layoffs like this. Because they should have depleted the buffer first before layoffs. If after that layoffs still happen the gov should have a second layer of supports in place. Because indeed like you said if a whole sector has a downturn its difficult for someone to find a new job.

What is the economic rationale behind a company keeping a large portion of its workforce idle? That's a waste of labor. Sure, it's probably a good idea to keep people paid for a while after layoffs to ease their transition to an in-demand job. But that's what unemployment benefits do.

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

#140
post #83

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. 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 n…

They are responding to changes in demand. Do you think they have an obligation to make a loss in future if they made a profit in the past? What effect do you think this would have on their ability to attract investment, the interest rates they have to pay on loans, the costs of insurance?

Even beyond the business itself, profits mater. They are the surplus a business generates that gets plowed back into the economy outside the business. That money gets invested in other businesses, spent on other goods and activities. It's the fuel that goes into other beneficial economic activities.

Leaving it sunk in an unproductive business that's paying people to do less, and generating fewer outputs is a tax on the whole rest of the economy. It's invisible because it's investment and spending that never happens, but it's a real effect. It's true that those unproductive workers still get paid and that money goes into the economy, but if they were working in another job at a productive company or retraining, that's a net gain. That's can't happen if they're stuck in an unproductive job.

>If you ask me a good business keeps a safety net when times a good and uses their safety net when times are bad.

Any good business does this, but they need to take acton on foreseeable headwinds in order to maintain that safety net against unforeseeable ones. When it looks like times are uncertain and getting worse, possibly in unpredictable ways, is not time to give up your safety net. That's how businesses fail and the whole company goes under. How does that benefit anyone?

Post reply on HN