[sgu999]

> 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 what was obviously the only phrase I was answering to.

[simonh]

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. These are not contradictory goals. A stronger more adaptive economy is better able to afford the costs of effectively managing such adaptations.

I don't think anyone unconditionally owes me a job. I don't have an unconditional claim on other people's money just because they paid me in the past. I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened.

It's not reasonable, and is seriously inefficient, to compel private companies to be government work programmes. The result is companies won't hire when they need more workers in case they get stuck with them, harming the company, workers, tax payers from reduced revenue, and the economy in general.

[sgu999]

> 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.

[hef19898]

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 put all jobs at risk. The real tragedy is, that a signifocant chink of those affected are under paid crew members and blue collar workers from countries without social security nets, whose families depend on their pay checks. And working on a Maersk vessel easily beats the quasi slavery on some fishing vessels by light years.

[sgu999]

> That you don't like that is a different topic.

Where did I write that, exactly?

[simonh]

>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.

[randomdata]

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

And also the plan of the workers. It is not like they didn't also know what was coming when they took the job.

[mstipetic]

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

[wiz21c]

> 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.

So let's talk about those generous amounts of taxes that were paid by Maersk lately...

[martin8412]

They paid nothing in comparison to normal companies.

[wiz21c]

I was being sarcastic

[mangosteenjuice]

>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.

[simonh]

>>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 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.

[interactivecode]

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.

[simonh]

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?

[boeingUH60]

Or maybe they’re an employee who understands how business works, unlike many others on this thread.

[lotsofpulp]

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

[interactivecode]

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.

[sgu999]

I think it's feasible in some cases but isn't in others. Here in France for instance a lot of seasonal workers are in the ski resorts during the winter and along the shores during the summer. It suits only a certain category of workers, of course.

[lotsofpulp]

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.

[Invictus0]

So the company should ignore the needs of the market and its customers?

Arguably workers should wake up and accept that jobs are not permanent or guaranteed.

[bsbsinai]

Unless you are an exec I suppose - based on what I see, it seems like in good times you make money, in bad times you take responsibility and others loose their jobs, and you still make money.

[Invictus0]

Execs do not permanently have jobs. Bankruptcy is a thing, and even without that, execs are fired all the time.

[infecto]

You are wrong, nobody knew exactly what would happen, we had ideas but did not know to an exact measure what would happen.