# Maersk makes Danish Junior Officers Redundant



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

A P Møller-Mærsk will replace 170 Danish junior officers on Danish flagged container carriers with Asian officers in order to reduce costs relating to the running of the ships. “We have to look at all costs. The replacements will be effected on a voluntary basis after negotiations with the employees involved”, explains Henrik Sloth, Marine HR manager in A P Møller-Mærsk.
The decision has shocked the Danish shipping community. Ship officer students in Svendborg and Marstal carried out a media stunt, putting up Villa Anna – the house where Mr A P Møller founded the company – for sale. 
A P Møller-Mærsk has 3,000 officers employed, of whom 800 are Danish citizens. 
“I don’t think that the 800 Danes are any better than the 2,200 officers of foreign nationality”, says Henrik Sloth.
It has not yet been revealed whether the 170 Danes will be laid off or transferred to other units within the group, or offered employment ashore.

Source scandinavian shipping gazette


----------



## Santos (Mar 16, 2005)

It just shows you the result of what the downright greed of bankers and the similar of politicians can do to a world and its workers. Its so unfair that they can bring misery and deprivation to honest working people and get away with it, isnt it about time that it was challenged. This EU thing is a cancer that is spreading thoughout the World and needs a something to stop it in its tracks.

Any ideas anyone ?

Chris


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Personally I'd be more inclined to believe that Maersk are using the current economic situation as an excuse to employ cheaper Labour. Once the economies of the world pick up, shall we see them ditching Far Eastern crews for Danes - somehow I think not.
What's the chances that in about a decade those Danish Old Men/Chiefs that are left will be replaced by Indians or like because there are no Danish Juniors coming through the system to replace them. And the reason there isn't any Danish Juniors is...
All too predictable from the 'Evil Empire' (as they're known).


----------



## Mick Spear (Jan 6, 2007)

Santos said:


> It just shows you the result of what the downright greed of bankers and the similar of politicians can do to a world and its workers. Its so unfair that they can bring misery and deprivation to honest working people and get away with it, isnt it about time that it was challenged. This EU thing is a cancer that is spreading thoughout the World and needs a something to stop it in its tracks.
> 
> Any ideas anyone ?
> 
> Chris


This sort of thing was challenged by working folk in UK a number of years ago. But the general feeling back then was that they were seen as militants, recalcitrants or ideologists. What is happening to these junior Danish Officers happened to British junior Officers only a few years after the massive cull in British ratings (apprx mid to late 80s?)
Mick S


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Only to be expected really - they are shipping companies, they are there to make a profit. The single most expensive part of running a vessel is the manning, NW European wages are just not competitive, simple as that. The costs get carried onto the customer - if you are too expensive then the customer goes elsewhere - you do it yourself every day, this is no different.

Not nice to see it happen though and never nice seeing young officers made redundant


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

So manning costs go down, repair costs go up.
Very simple really.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

JoK said:


> So manning costs go down, repair costs go up.
> Very simple really.


Correct JoK but it does not necessarily mean more expensive - Maersk are well known/notorious for all sorts of tactics to offset one against the other. Minimum crewing to the bone, riding squads, full replacement, no maintenance except breakdown etc etc. It goes right against our grain because we want well run, well maintained vessels BUT we also operate well above the minimum requirements = expensive. Throw in a few well aimed accountants and an operating philosophy that is basically "keep it legal" and this is what you get. These are made up figures but for example:

Save $1000 dollars a day in manning in a year that is $365000 in 5 years it is $1,825,000 - does this cover the extra work required at the 5 year drydock? there is a crossover point.


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

I struggle daily with the C\Es that want perfect ships. That is how they are trained, however I have to get the ship out on time and safe, not perfect. 
However this is short term planning which leads to problems in the future with manning. My outfit did it in 95 and we struggled. Everyone knew what the implications were 10 years down the road, but hey they said then, that's not going to be my problem today.


----------



## Billieboy (May 18, 2009)

Well, when I was at sea in late 1969, it was my opinion that NOBODY deserves to be at sea on a ship! It was then and is now; I thought, that by being ashore, it would be possible for me to help reduce the number of people at sea, working day and night, in Hot Engine/Boiler Rooms. Perhaps I did in my own small way, at least, an odd comment here and there, when needed, ensured that unsafe vessels were speedily repaired and certified safe, prior to their sailing.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

JoK said:


> I struggle daily with the C\Es that want perfect ships. That is how they are trained, however I have to get the ship out on time and safe, not perfect.
> However this is short term planning which leads to problems in the future with manning. My outfit did it in 95 and we struggled. Everyone knew what the implications were 10 years down the road, but hey they said then, that's not going to be my problem today.



Bet you still operate above the minimum required level though(Thumb) 

Now here is the clever bit - how long do Maersk keep their ships for??


----------



## GWB (Jul 11, 2007)

I feel that it is time to understand that due to global economy and the global market place all jobs are up for grabs and there is a lot of people out there looking to improve themselves and their labour is for sale at lower cost just as other products are bought off shelf. Companies will look to using it provided they have the qualifications etc. The company's responsibility is to its share holders to return good dividends on their investment. The manning cost go down repairs go is not necessary correct, that implies when UK and EU crews have break downs etc. it was bad luck not poor maintenance. I do not think so.

GWB


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

GWB said:


> I feel that it is time to understand that due to global economy and the global market place all jobs are up for grabs and there is a lot of people out there looking to improve themselves and their labour is for sale at lower cost just as other products are bought off shelf. Companies will look to using it provided they have the qualifications etc. The company's responsibility is to its share holders to return good dividends on their investment. The manning cost go down repairs go is not necessary correct, that implies when UK and EU crews have break downs etc. it was bad luck not poor maintenance. I do not think so.
> 
> GWB



Its more a problem with actual manning levels rather than nationalities although the very cheapest crews are cheap for a very good reason - now combine the two


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

James_C said:


> A P Møller-Mærsk will replace 170 Danish junior officers on Danish flagged container carriers with Asian officers in order to reduce costs relating to the running of the ships. “We have to look at all costs. The replacements will be effected on a voluntary basis after negotiations with the employees involved”, explains Henrik Sloth, Marine HR manager in A P Møller-Mærsk.
> The decision has shocked the Danish shipping community. Ship officer students in Svendborg and Marstal carried out a media stunt, putting up Villa Anna – the house where Mr A P Møller founded the company – for sale.
> A P Møller-Mærsk has 3,000 officers employed, of whom 800 are Danish citizens.
> “I don’t think that the 800 Danes are any better than the 2,200 officers of foreign nationality”, says Henrik Sloth.
> ...


In addition to the above, Maersk are also going to make 155 British Junior Officers redundant.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Was it not Shell (or perhaps Amoco, I forget) that when they made most of their Brits redundant and replaced with individuals from out East they worked out a manning rota.
Basically, if you had 5 ships, 1 would have a British crew with the other 4 being 'foreign'. The British crew would periodically transfer around all 5 ships to try and 'fix' all that had gone wrong.
More food for thought - when Shell built the new 'H' class 46000dwt product tankers in the early 90s, they were designed from the outset to be manned by Eastern nationals but with European top 4. The Shell office therefore fitted a Radar repeater in the Old Mans dayroom so he could monitor traffic without leaving his cabin - any ex Shell hands will verify this.
So what does that tell you about what even the company thought of who they were employing?
Some companies are now actively going back to NW European manning after having their fingers burnt having 'gone East'. Chevron Texaco being a prime example.


----------



## Frank P (Mar 13, 2005)

I have never sailed on British ships but as far as I am aware, in the past quite a few British shipping companies like Bank Line, Bocklebanks and Ellerman to name a few, employed mainly Asian deck/engine crew, is not a natural progression that sooner or later it would also affect the officers.

Cheers Frank(Thumb)


----------



## BlythSpirit (Dec 17, 2006)

I find the reactions to this thread a tad naive, all companies are in business solely to make a profit. British and Dutch tanker crews fourty/fifty years ago were cheaper than American merchant marine staff and the oil companies exploited this source of cheaper labour. Why should it suprise anyone the same ethos persists today?

Outside of the narrow confines of the naval world the same thing goes on - the emerging world provides cheaper labour than the developed world and has always increased their share of the worlds workforce. Protectionism in the purely commercial world is about as futile as it was with the luddites during the industrial revolution. That is not to say it is preferable - just inevitable.


----------



## TonyAllen (Aug 6, 2008)

Its the kind of rationale that all companys use to reduce costs IE the steel trade, the motor trade, the clothing trade, but the bottom line is that the guys at the top have the power to protect their very own jobs first and foremost, after 10 years who cares, they are long gone into a nice retirement,it then is someone elses problem,and they can say we thought it was the right thing to do at that time. Tony


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Bet you still operate above the minimum required level though(Thumb)
> 
> Now here is the clever bit - how long do Maersk keep their ships for??


I'll bet for no more then 5 years. We run ours a tad longer.


----------



## MARINEJOCKY (Nov 25, 2007)

I heard that Mearsk are bringing in that 13 yr old to run one ship by herself. 

I am totally against the EU but what does that have to do with a decision made by a "for profit business". 

When I sailed with Mearsk over 25 years ago the ships were built for minimum crewing and we kept them in good order thanks in part to the excellent equipment installed from the start.


----------



## GWB (Jul 11, 2007)

BlythSpirit you have hit the nail on the head you are right on the money.

GWB


----------



## R58484956 (Apr 19, 2004)

Up to 50 staff expected to be laid of on the Wightlink ferries, apparently not involving ships officers. ( Southampton to the Isle of Wight V/v) This is stated as seasonal.


----------



## stein (Nov 4, 2006)

I wonder if many of us today would work for the wages we once had, although adjusted for inflation, doing what sailors on today’s container ferries do of work and have of recreation compared to people on shore. Regards, Stein.


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

MARINEJOCKY said:


> I am totally against the EU but what does that have to do with a decision made by a "for profit business".


Because it is the EU which has allowed member nations to abandon national manning?


----------



## Supergoods (Nov 25, 2007)

Frank P said:


> I have never sailed on British ships but as far as I am aware, in the past quite a few British shipping companies like Bank Line, Bocklebanks and Ellerman to name a few, employed mainly Asian deck/engine crew, is not a natural progression that sooner or later it would also affect the officers.
> 
> Cheers Frank(Thumb)


If I remember correctly, the manning scale for one of Brocklebank's vessels was two and a quarter Indians for every Btitish crew member on an equivilant vessel, so maybe the economics were closer than it might seem at first.
The reason for Indian crews was that, before air travel was available, it was impossible to get replacement British crew members on the Indian coast


----------



## Bill Davies (Sep 5, 2007)

BlythSpirit said:


> I find the reactions to this thread a tad naive, *all companies are in business solely to make a profit*. British and Dutch tanker crews fourty/fifty years ago were cheaper than American merchant marine staff and the oil companies exploited this source of cheaper labour. Why should it suprise anyone the same ethos persists today?
> 
> Outside of the narrow confines of the naval world the same thing goes on - the emerging world provides cheaper labour than the developed world and has always increased their share of the worlds workforce. Protectionism in the purely commercial world is about as futile as it was with the luddites during the industrial revolution. That is not to say it is preferable - just inevitable.


Good post BlythSpirit, with which I would agree.
Unfortunately Maersk are going through a bad patch with their Container ships and they are only doing what anyone else would do to stay afloat.
I am sure they will come through it all which will not be the case for lesser companies where the banks will be closing in.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Lancastrian said:


> Because it is the EU which has allowed member nations to abandon national manning?


????????????


----------



## MARINEJOCKY (Nov 25, 2007)

SM, remember to allow for senior moments (*))


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Lancastrian said:


> Because it is the EU which has allowed member nations to abandon national manning?


Better expressed as ''it is the EU that has prevented member nations from applying protectionist laws to ensure manning by people from the flag state.'' If they hadn't done so, the EU might have had ships that were manned only by EU nationals but those ships would have been without any cargoes to carry, as the trade would have been taken by non-EU carriers with lower crewing costs.

The same approach is intended to prevent EU members from insisting that equipment, food and other goods be procured locally and not imported from other members. They allow British manufacturers and service providers to export to other EU countries without fighting local tariffs and regulations and permit you in the UK to buy foreign goods at low prices. We apply that approach in the UK, perhaps other EU members are not so diligent but that is a different argument.


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

Ron Stringer said:


> Better expressed as ''it is the EU that has prevented member nations from applying protectionist laws to ensure manning by people from the flag state.'' If they hadn't done so, the EU might have had ships that were manned only by EU nationals but those ships would have been without any cargoes to carry, as the trade would have been taken by non-EU carriers with lower crewing costs.
> 
> .


Not if we detained every sub-standard ship which entered our waters.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Not sure I understand the logic there, Lancastrian. Someone that will work for lower wages does not equate with lower quality. Or are you suggesting that the RN was far inferior to the USN because our matelots were lower paid?


----------



## Billieboy (May 18, 2009)

Lancastrian said:


> Not if we detained every sub-standard ship which entered our waters.


This was suggested in Rotterdam in the late 80s, an investigation found that an additional 200 Ship examiners were required. The cost of a) finding, b)Examining for fitness, c) Paying, and d) Berthing ships held; would amount to a phenomenal amount and require Billions in Port expansion. The establishment of reliable companies to carry out the repairs, was expected to take about five years. This was only in Rotterdam!


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

Ron Stringer said:


> Not sure I understand the logic there, Lancastrian. Someone that will work for lower wages does not equate with lower quality. Or are you suggesting that the RN was far inferior to the USN because our matelots were lower paid?


No, but it was inferior because in all aspects the RN was and is underfunded.
Are you really suggesting the quality of world shipping has improved recently?
You dont need to understand my logic - I blame the EU for everything![=P]


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

Billieboy said:


> This was suggested in Rotterdam in the late 80s, an investigation found that an additional 200 Ship examiners were required. The cost of a) finding, b)Examining for fitness, c) Paying, and d) Berthing ships held; would amount to a phenomenal amount and require Billions in Port expansion. The establishment of reliable companies to carry out the repairs, was expected to take about five years. This was only in Rotterdam!


Who said anything about repairing them? Scuttling would solve the problem, and you wouldn't need to do many before the message got home.


----------



## Billieboy (May 18, 2009)

Lancastrian said:


> Who said anything about repairing them? Scuttling would solve the problem, and you wouldn't need to do many before the message got home.


The detained ships would have to be repaired, prior to sailing for a scuttling position, as they are detained as, "Unseaworthy vessels".(==D)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Lancastrian said:


> No, but it was inferior because in all aspects the RN was and is underfunded.
> *Are you really suggesting the quality of world shipping has improved recently?*
> You dont need to understand my logic - I blame the EU for everything![=P]


Beyond all recognition - still plenty of nasties - but the overall quality is through the roof nowadays - the rise in port state inspections especially in Europe and the greater interest shown by Flag State authorities has been working wonders. It is quite easy for port state to target the real nasty flags plus of course these days they actually talk to each other.


----------



## judd1992 (Aug 28, 2008)

Have just been informed today that Maersk Offshore are intending to make 113 officers from the UK container fleet redundant in the near future. Also cadets that qualify during 2009/2010 won't be employed as officers.
Am glad that have just recently transfered to the danish tanker fleet.


----------



## Bill Davies (Sep 5, 2007)

The worrying thing is, what is happening at Maersk is just the tip of the ice-berg. I believe the worst is to come, and next year when Germany wakes up to market conditions you will see a blood-bath out there. Not good news I'm afraid.


----------



## Brian Dobbie (Nov 18, 2005)

I am retired now but worked for Maersk at the end of my sea going life.
Under the RBS Hamburg banner they had already replaced British with Filipinos and that was including the Master.
Other ships had the top four retained as EU whilst the rest were Ukrainian,Russian and Filipino.
What annoys me is that they took on these young British Officers and there was never going to be any future for them with Maersk.
The sooner people face up to the fact that the British Marine Industry is a total sunset industry the better we will all be.

Brian


----------



## jmcg (Apr 20, 2008)

Brian.

Was that not the case since since the mid /end 70s. Having only last week visited the oil and dry cargo cargo terminals at Milford Haven and Pembroke dock I saw nothing that inspired me. Not a Red Ensign flying on any of the vessels, nor indeed a sight of a "European" crewman.

BW

J


----------



## davidships (Nov 3, 2007)

JoK said:


> (Originally Posted by Satanic Mechanic
> Now here is the clever bit - how long do Maersk keep their ships for??) I'll bet for no more then 5 years. We run ours a tad longer.


And the point is? I thought that investing in new vessels and technology to meet customers' changing needs was a good thing. That requires selling on older vessels to meet other customers' needs.

But anyway it's not right. Just taking the fleet of 35 currently listed as owned by The Maersk Co in the UK (I don't suppose the Danish fleet has a very different picture) more than half has been with the company for more than 5 years. They were built in the following decades, and all were built new for the Maersk apart from three 1991/2 which started with CMB and arrived via Farrell and P&O:

1970s - 1
1980s - 4
1990s - 8
2000-2003 - 7
2004-2009 - 15

David


----------

