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

141–150 of 176 posts

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

#141

Post by paddim8 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #17
mo_42 wrote: post #14

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). So I wouldn't put these two things into one argument necessary. Then, an absolute number of profit doesn't reveal much. Maybe this seemingly huge profit is tiny compared to the effort to make it (i.e., the profit margin). As much as I'd like to see a world where we value more aspects…

> 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.

Why do you think you know more about this than them?

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

#142

Post by BobaFloutist »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #135
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)

> 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.

Then hire year-by-year (or 6-month by 6-month) contractors with the explicit understanding that they're being hired to cover a surge that they expect to end, and that their contract will not be renewed after it ends.

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

#143

Post by simonh »

sgu999 wrote: post #77
simonh wrote: post #53

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…

> 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.

>They knew it was coming, and increasing temporarily the headcount was their plan.

I see no evidence for this. Business was booming by the end of 2021 and headcount increases realised in 2022 would have started the year before, which was before the invasion of Ukraine.

In any case a 10% drop in had count is not all that much. That's the level of head count churn most companies go through in a year anyway. The majority of this was probably satisfied by early retirement and voluntary redundancies. In Europe in most circumstances you're required to go through that process first. This whole furore is a storm in a teacup inspired by profound misunderstanding of how economies and companies actually function in the real world.

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

#144

Post by clnq »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #129
McDyver wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I ran a tech startup for several years and I can say you have a simplistic view of this. My company didn't want to be a unicorn, it didn't want VC money, and it didn't want the whole pie. It was funded out of pocket until it became profitable. It was under capitalism, and yet we had no investors other than the founders to be greedy for. We just built a product that was important for us, and we were content with earning enough for this to be worthwhile.

Capitalism is not synonymous with greed. We just idolize greedy people. We call them things like "successful", "self-made", "inspiring", or "capitalist" to absolve them of their greed. In the Soviet Union, people would call greedy people "successful", "self-made", "inspiring", and "communist".

It's really just the greed.

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

#145

Post by FirmwareBurner »

clnq wrote: post #144
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 w…

I ran a tech startup for several years and I can say you have a simplistic view of this. My company didn't want to be a unicorn, it didn't want VC money, and it didn't want the whole pie. It was funded out of pocket until it became profitable. It was under capitalism, and yet we had no investors other than the founders to be greedy for. We just built a product that was important for us, and we were content with earni…

Sure, I get it, and while there's several companies who think like your own, that's not the norm, many, especially the big trillion dollar ones, are the exact opposite.

Do you think Apple, Microsoft, Google, Saudi Aramco, etc. got to trillion dollar valuations by being mindful and not greedy?

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

#146

Post by Racing0461 »

hipadev23 wrote: post #125

Flexport still probably making 50 offers a day so they can rescind them the following week

Is flexport an "industry plant"? I see them posting here literally every month saying they are hiring and on linkedin but never anything more than that.

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

#147

Post by wheelinsupial »

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.

I think there is some middle ground. I used to work in manufacturing. During the slow periods, employees with nothing to do were reassigned to projects to improve safety, productivity, quality, plant maintenance, and to help the employees with learning and development. Yes, some employees did get laid off, but the attempt was to invest in the company and people before getting to layoffs.

I don't know the shipping industry, so it's possible this isn't feasible.

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

#148

Post by AnimalMuppet »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #142
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Then hire year-by-year (or 6-month by 6-month) contractors with the explicit understanding that they're being hired to cover a surge that they expect to end, and that their contract will not be renewed after it ends.

Why should they?

In what world would that be better than continuous employment as long as needed, for either the company or the employees? (The good times usually last longer than just one year.)

More to the point: Why do you think you have the right to tell them how they should structure their employment practices? Why do you think the entire economy should be restructured to match your preferences?

I agree with making it clear that they are being hired to cover a surge.

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

#149

Post by lotsofpulp »

interactivecode wrote: post #132
lotsofpulp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No one is arguing against providing sufficient pay to incentivize people to accept a job for 2 months.

Sounds like your last sentence also agrees that businesses should be able to increase number of employees and decrease number of employees.

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

#150

Post by clnq »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #145
clnq wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran a tech startup for several years and I can say you have a simplistic view of this. My company didn't want to be a unicorn, it didn't want VC money, and it didn't want the whole pie. It was funded out of pocket until it became profitable. It was under capitalism, and yet we had no investors other than the founders to be greedy for. We just built a product that was important for us, and we were content with earni…

Sure, I get it, and while there's several companies who think like your own, that's not the norm, many, especially the big trillion dollar ones, are the exact opposite. Do you think Apple, Microsoft, Google, Saudi Aramco, etc. got to trillion dollar valuations by being mindful and not greedy?

All I'm saying is that capitalism does not prescribe greed. Take away capitalism and you have the same problems with greed. Take away greed and capitalism doesn't sound so bad anymore.
Post reply on HN