[AnimalMuppet]

> 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.

[BobaFloutist]

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.

[AnimalMuppet]

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.

[BobaFloutist]

You know, I was going to respond with my thoughts, and then I realized they mostly applied to the United States. In a country with guaranteed off ramp/severance pay, most of my concerns are significantly less relevant. That being said...

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?

Of course I have the self awareness to recognize that I'm just a random guy sitting on the couch supplying my 2¢ on the employment practices of an enormous corporation in a different country. But I assume that's not what you're talking about, since a fundamental conceit of Hacker News (and, frankly, most of the internet) is that random anonymous people bored at work or at home with vastly varying competence, understanding, and reasoning are free to indulge their hubris and make broad, sweeping judgements well outside their own domains, safe in the knowledge that they have zero power to actually enact those judgements.

So that makes the question more "Why should the public have any interest or say in the business decisions of a private corporation?" And if we don't already see eye-to-eye on that, I very much doubt that we will, since it tends to be a very baked in opinion.

[AnimalMuppet]

Good point that Denmark isn't the US. I also was thinking from a US point of view. I don't know what the rules are in Denmark. That said, Maersk is very international. Unless their layoffs were all in Denmark, they won't all be covered by the same set of rules.

Your long paragraph: Well, yeah, you and me both. And well said.

But on your last paragraph, I probably agree with you more than you expect. The public has a definite interest in such things.

Where we differ (and it seems like a small difference, at least to me) is that I see nothing wrong with hiring people for the duration of a temporary increase in demand, as long as they know up front that that's the deal. For those willing to take that deal, and companies willing to give it, I see no need for the government to prevent it.

[BobaFloutist]

Honestly, last paragraph, I was assuming you agreed with me in general, just wanted to note that even if you didn't there was little point in expanding.

[creer]

Depending on the country, hiring for 6 month, 1 year, permanent, etc is extremely regulated. There is very little leeway or choice to the company ... aside from hiring outside that country.