Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sgu999 958 days ago
> 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.

3 comments

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.

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

Where did I write that, exactly?

>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.

> 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.