8 ms·

"Do you suggest they keep employees around with nothing to do because of significantly reduced shipping demand?" Management should be fired for miscalculated h

"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.

boeingUH60 3y ago
They hired in response to heightened demand. Demand falls, and they should be fired for miscalculated headcount? Sorry, but that hardly makes sense…you might as well say management must be able to see the future.
- avidphantasm 3y ago
  Maybe they could cut everyone’s hours and keep more people employed? This would make surging to meet future demand spikes much more easy. Novel idea I know.
  - gruez 3y ago
    That's just going to cause all the high performers to jump ship (heh), because they can find a new job that doesn't have cut hours.
    - reg_dunlop 3y ago
      I thought there was decreased demand. Or is that decreased demand for this company only?
      - gruez 3y ago
        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.
        interactivecode 3y ago
        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.
  - vivekd 3y ago
    Ontario Canada's NDP gov't tried this approach in the 90s for the public service in response to a budget deficit. They called it Ray days. The approach was very unpopular with public servants and the public generally. It was one of the reasons for the party's loss of influence.
  - crote 3y ago
    Cutting hours isn't going to be a viable option when you're also cutting their pay. There are plenty of people who simply can't afford to stay at a company when their pay is being cut by 10% or more. They need pretty much all of their salary to pay bills. Taking such a pay cut is only an option for the higher incomes, where there is some jiggle room due to significant discretionary income.
- sgu999 3y ago
  > 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.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Should retailers hire more people during holiday season? Or theme parks during summer vacation?
    - interactivecode 3y ago
      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.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        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.
      - sgu999 3y ago
        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.
  - 3y ago
- gedy 3y ago
  I guarantee you those fired weren't all hired in past 2 years. I think we should quit with the "layoffs == trimming the fat" line.
  - cjbgkagh 3y ago
    Empathy is painful and people will latch onto framing that minimizes that pain - victim blaming is an easy one.
- typon 3y ago
  You can hire contractors and temporary workers. This isn't a new concept.
hef19898 3y ago
Yes, let's set the minimum requirement for management at being able to predict the future. But then what? Do you start adjusting for in two years now, risking failure? Or later? Not every company can afford ridiculous salaries and headcounts until the next VC funding round comes through.
- candiodari 3y ago
  All of this forgets that management, in capitalism, represents the shareholders. Their ONLY job is to invest as wisely as possible, and yes, that means predicting the future. Now there's 2 parts of management. There's accounting, processing orders, filling out whatever government forms need filling out, keeping up to date with new regulations, ... Sometimes this is called accounting, but generally it's called management. They're not who we mean. But then there's management, like the C-suite. Who "set direction". Their ONLY job, like shareholders, is to predict the future. That's literally their only function. So yes, firing them because they misjudged required headcount doesn't sound even a little bit unreasonable.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    But they did everything right for shareholders. They positioned the company to benefit from pas demand, and now they adjust head count for lower demand. Both decisions are good for shareholders, and the long term survival of a company. Unless of course, and I didn't check, Maersks bets on air freight, warehousing and fulfillment didn't oay off. In ehich case the C suite set a wrong strategy.
troupe 3y ago
This appears to be an example of a company NOT miscalculating how many people they need, but how many people they need changes over time. Therefore headcount should be expected to change over time. Companies hire workers when the need them and let them go when they don't. Just like workers take jobs when they need the pay and quit when they don't. If management did not hire more people when they needed more workers it is bad for the company and also bad for the workers who could have been hired and earning those wages when there was increased demand.
Manuel_D 3y ago
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?

"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.

boeingUH60 3y ago

They hired in response to heightened demand. Demand falls, and they should be fired for miscalculated headcount? Sorry, but that hardly makes sense…you might as well say management must be able to see the future.

avidphantasm 3y ago
Maybe they could cut everyone’s hours and keep more people employed? This would make surging to meet future demand spikes much more easy. Novel idea I know.
- gruez 3y ago
  That's just going to cause all the high performers to jump ship (heh), because they can find a new job that doesn't have cut hours.
  - reg_dunlop 3y ago
    I thought there was decreased demand. Or is that decreased demand for this company only?
    - gruez 3y ago
      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.
      - interactivecode 3y ago
        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.
- vivekd 3y ago
  Ontario Canada's NDP gov't tried this approach in the 90s for the public service in response to a budget deficit. They called it Ray days. The approach was very unpopular with public servants and the public generally. It was one of the reasons for the party's loss of influence.
- crote 3y ago
  Cutting hours isn't going to be a viable option when you're also cutting their pay. There are plenty of people who simply can't afford to stay at a company when their pay is being cut by 10% or more. They need pretty much all of their salary to pay bills. Taking such a pay cut is only an option for the higher incomes, where there is some jiggle room due to significant discretionary income.
sgu999 3y ago
> 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.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Should retailers hire more people during holiday season? Or theme parks during summer vacation?
  - interactivecode 3y ago
    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.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      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.
    - sgu999 3y ago
      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.
- 3y ago
gedy 3y ago
I guarantee you those fired weren't all hired in past 2 years. I think we should quit with the "layoffs == trimming the fat" line.
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  Empathy is painful and people will latch onto framing that minimizes that pain - victim blaming is an easy one.
typon 3y ago
You can hire contractors and temporary workers. This isn't a new concept.

hef19898 3y ago

Yes, let's set the minimum requirement for management at being able to predict the future. But then what? Do you start adjusting for in two years now, risking failure? Or later? Not every company can afford ridiculous salaries and headcounts until the next VC funding round comes through.

candiodari 3y ago
All of this forgets that management, in capitalism, represents the shareholders. Their ONLY job is to invest as wisely as possible, and yes, that means predicting the future. Now there's 2 parts of management. There's accounting, processing orders, filling out whatever government forms need filling out, keeping up to date with new regulations, ... Sometimes this is called accounting, but generally it's called management. They're not who we mean. But then there's management, like the C-suite. Who "set direction". Their ONLY job, like shareholders, is to predict the future. That's literally their only function. So yes, firing them because they misjudged required headcount doesn't sound even a little bit unreasonable.
- hef19898 3y ago
  But they did everything right for shareholders. They positioned the company to benefit from pas demand, and now they adjust head count for lower demand. Both decisions are good for shareholders, and the long term survival of a company. Unless of course, and I didn't check, Maersks bets on air freight, warehousing and fulfillment didn't oay off. In ehich case the C suite set a wrong strategy.

troupe 3y ago

This appears to be an example of a company NOT miscalculating how many people they need, but how many people they need changes over time. Therefore headcount should be expected to change over time. Companies hire workers when the need them and let them go when they don't. Just like workers take jobs when they need the pay and quit when they don't. If management did not hire more people when they needed more workers it is bad for the company and also bad for the workers who could have been hired and earning those wages when there was increased demand.

Manuel_D 3y ago

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?