NCL Miami Lays off 50+ Employees

[SydneyD'Augstralia]

My son's best friend's mom has been with NCL Miami for 28 years and was laid off, along with 50+ other employees in the main office.

 

I understand many of the layoffs were long time workers.....:(

 

That's a lot of people to let go all at once....

[FIRELT5]

http://www.cruise-community.com/ShowStory.asp?ID=14944

[time2cruise1]

My son's best friend's mom has been with NCL Miami for 28 years and was laid off' date=' along with 50+ other employees in the main office.

 

I understand many of the layoffs were long time workers.....:(

 

That's a lot of people to let go all at once....[/quote']

 

Somebody has to pay for the refunds for the 12 folls that missed the Sky. There is a price for all the money people here NCL should refund or cover. They have two choices raise prices or cut expenses. Letting good people go in business today is far to common.

There is no free lunch (refunds or hotels) in America. NCL pays for hotels and families lose there income. Sorry to hear this.

 

NCL Corp. confirmed that it has made a staff reduction of approximately 145 people in its global shoreside workforce.

[watchdiva]

NCL confirms shoreside downsizing

21/8/2008

NCL Corp. confirmed that it has made a staff reduction of approximately 145 people in its global shoreside workforce. The company has undertaken ‘a realignment of its organization to more appropriately support its pattern of growth over the next few years,’ NCL said in a statement to Seatrade Insider.

 

The statement added that the external business development sales force ‘remains intact and this reduction will not impact the support we provide to our valued travel partners.’

NCL is gearing up for a growth surge with the arrival of its two F3 newbuilds in 2010, but prior to that will see a capacity reduction with the withdrawal of Marco Polo earlier this year and the withdrawals of Norwegian Dream this fall and Norwegian Majesty next year.

NCL’s business mix has also changed, with two ships leaving Hawaii and three ships deployed in Europe for the first time, including one on a year-round basis. Fuel cost has been a further factor in NCL’s reassessment of its cost structure. The company said it now expects higher fuel prices to be a long-term systemic change.

 

It's not too surprising in light of the economy right now........

[CC Help Michell]

Somebody has to pay for the refunds for the 12 folls that missed the Sky. There is a price for all the money people here NCL should refund or cover. They have two choices raise prices or cut expenses. Letting good people go in business today is far to common.

 

There is no free lunch (refunds or hotels) in America. NCL pays for hotels and families lose there income. Sorry to hear this.

 

NCL Corp. confirmed that it has made a staff reduction of approximately 145 people in its global shoreside workforce.

 

Interesting viewpoints. Letting people go (also known as cutting expenses) isn't really a trend of "business today." It's been around for ... well... forever. The laws of expenses, profits, cost margins, etc. don't actually fluctuate too much -- you either take in enough money to cover your expenses with some leftover for R&D and future development, or you stop doing business.

 

I don't think this has anything to do with the 12 pax from the Sky, by the way -- even if that was 12 solo travelers (unlikely in the extreme), $5-10K in hotel rooms doesn't require laying off 150 people worldwide. If (more likely) this was 3-4 families with a couple nights' worth of hotels, then we're talking $1800 or so. A certain amount of customer concessions is an anticipated, and budgeted, part of any company's bottom line. However, the current economic situation certainly might justify those layoffs. That doesn't mean I'm not sorry for those affected and their families -- I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt. But I don't think it had diddly to do with some minor concessions to 12 pax off one of of NCL's ships.

[JCJR]

I don't think this has anything to do with the 12 pax from the Sky, by the way -- even if that was 12 solo travelers (unlikely in the extreme), $5-10K in hotel rooms doesn't require laying off 150 people worldwide. If (more likely) this was 3-4 families with a couple nights' worth of hotels, then we're talking $1800 or so. A certain amount of customer concessions is an anticipated, and budgeted, part of any company's bottom line. However, the current economic situation certainly might justify those layoffs. That doesn't mean I'm not sorry for those affected and their families -- I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt. But I don't think it had diddly to do with some minor concessions to 12 pax off one of of NCL's ships.

 

Seems like NCL is penny wise and dollar foolish, that is why they are in trouble.

[CC Help Michell]

Seems like NCL is penny wise and dollar foolish, that is why they are in trouble.

 

 

:confused: What? The post to which I was replying was taking Sky passengers to task, claiming that the fact that NCL had paid for their hotels, etc. might have contributed to a bottom line requiring layoffs. In other words, NCL's customer concessions caused a problem requiring layoffs. Since those concessions in any event couldn't have topped $10K or so, and likely were more like $3K, how does that make NCL pennywise, pound foolish?

 

My only point was that it's much more likely the current economy is behind the layoffs than the concessions to Sky pax. NCL may in fact be in trouble, but since it's a privately-held corporation the evidence for that will be hard to find. The billion+ dollar Apollo capital infusion last year seems to indicate that at least cash wise the company should be okay for now, as does the continuing construction of the F3 ships.

 

Mostly, though, I wanted to reply to the "penny wise, pound foolish" thing -- NCL has paid a LOT of pennies to Sky passengers. Not only the 12 who didn't realize that a hurricane might change their plans, but others who had problems over the last couple of months, as reported on several threads here. NCL IS spending the pennies, but apparently travel is so depressed right now (and my email confirms this daily -- if I weren't a teacher and if I had independent wealth, I'd be on permanent vacation right now!) that some layoffs were still necessary.

[fin]

" Letting people go (also known as cutting expenses) isn't really a trend of "business today." "

 

Read the Wall Street Journal much? It is not a new concept, but to say that it is not a current trend is a bit ....well, pick a word yourself.

[CC Help Michell]

" Letting people go (also known as cutting expenses) isn't really a trend of "business today." "

 

Read the Wall Street Journal much? It is not a new concept, but to say that it is not a current trend is a bit ....well, pick a word yourself.

 

Huh? I was laid off in 1986 from a job, and again on September 10, 2001 -- the next day my perspective about how horrible that was rather dramatically changed.

 

My point in my post was that laying off employees has been an expense cutting measure for donkey's years. I was replying to the implication in the post I quoted -- "letting good people go in business today is far too common." I think "letting good people go" happens in every industry, without good or bad intentions, due to economic circumstances, and it's not a reflection of "business today." I wasn't saying that it's not happening now, just that it's not a reflection of "business today" any more than of "business for the last 100 years."

[kontraxed]

My firm is ramping up to join the "trend." I am totally sympathetic to those people who are laid off. Selfishly, I really don't want to join them. I always have to laugh when I hear that firms expect loyalty from their employees but they will let someone with 28 years go in a heartbeat. How many of the laid-off experienced people (aka older and more exepensive) will be ultimately replaced with younger (and cheaper) people?

 

Sorry - just venting.

[JCJR]

:confused: What? The post to which I was replying was taking Sky passengers to task, claiming that the fact that NCL had paid for their hotels, etc. might have contributed to a bottom line requiring layoffs. In other words, NCL's customer concessions caused a problem requiring layoffs. Since those concessions in any event couldn't have topped $10K or so, and likely were more like $3K, how does that make NCL pennywise, pound foolish?

 

My only point was that it's much more likely the current economy is behind the layoffs than the concessions to Sky pax. NCL may in fact be in trouble, but since it's a privately-held corporation the evidence for that will be hard to find. The billion+ dollar Apollo capital infusion last year seems to indicate that at least cash wise the company should be okay for now, as does the continuing construction of the F3 ships.

 

Mostly, though, I wanted to reply to the "penny wise, pound foolish" thing -- NCL has paid a LOT of pennies to Sky passengers. Not only the 12 who didn't realize that a hurricane might change their plans, but others who had problems over the last couple of months, as reported on several threads here. NCL IS spending the pennies, but apparently travel is so depressed right now (and my email confirms this daily -- if I weren't a teacher and if I had independent wealth, I'd be on permanent vacation right now!) that some layoffs were still necessary.

 

My response was geared to NCL trying to save money (pennies, the cost of putting 12 pax in a hotel) and costing them dollars in bad publicity. Same with the issues on the Sky, trying to save pennies by not fixing the A/C and plumbing and it costing them dollars in refunds, OBC, bad publicity and still having to pay to fix those issues.

 

Also, the fact that those employees (if indeed) they had the longest tenure was probably to save all the benefits those individuals had accumalated over the years.

[AuntieBarb]

My firm is ramping up to join the "trend." I am totally sympathetic to those people who are laid off. Selfishly, I really don't want to join them. I always have to laugh when I hear that firms expect loyalty from their employees but they will let someone with 28 years go in a heartbeat. How many of the laid-off experienced people (aka older and more exepensive) will be ultimately replaced with younger (and cheaper) people?

 

Sorry - just venting.

 

Plenty; either that or supported by on-call contractors!

 

Valid vent, IMO. Many service industry positions suffer when the bottom line gets a trim. There's a lot to be said for preserving experienced employees, but they are also the ones with the higher salaries and healthier benefits packages.

 

Who cares if it costs money to train the new recruits (when the time comes), while we suffer from their lack of expertise. :rolleyes: I mean really, who are we to complain?

[terrymtex01]

I , along with 299 other people, got laid off Aug 1st at my company. The reason? The company told us matter of factly they were not making there numbers so far this year and the only way to do it is to cut head count. There is NO LOYALITY in business any more. Am I bitter? No.. because I have seen this trend for years. Just like (and God I feel old when I say stuff like this) but there is no customer service any more. Not real customer service. Not like was every where when I was a kid. The retail industry ruined that when they made sales people hourly instead of commission. Why should joe blow salesperson care if I buy my TV from him, or the place three doors down? In reality. it doesn't change a thing in his pocket. If you ever want to know what REAL customer service used to be like, go to a Nieman Marcus sometime. They really do have true customer service.

 

The absolute only thing that matters to any company (and I am talking big companies, not mom and pop orginazations, is the investors. Nothing else matters to them at all. Customers, employees, nothing. If something goes horribly wrong then you hear the investors come forth and say.. "Oh our customer's are number one with us". No.. they are not.. the almighty dollar is. I don't expect NCL or any other cruise line to be any different.

 

Sorry I went way off subject. I am very sorry for those NCL people that lost their jobs. I can not imagine how devistated I would be working for them for 20 something years and having that happen. Guess they were not union.

[smeyer418]

my view of this is a little different. I think there has been a breakdown in the social contract between the workers and the bosses. There at one time was some relationship between what the lowest employee was paid and the highest. No more. Instead of letting go two vp's that make 2 million per year they have to lay off 145 front line employees. sometimes it is necessary to re aline the number of employees(the amount of work expands to cover the number of employees) but many job cuts don't wind up with a cut in payroll only people getting paid...

 

ps I don't think the most senior employees salary should ever be more than 100 times the lower one. This doesn't mean sernio employees shouldn't get stock incentives so they can make more if the company prospers but they shouldn't get more even when it doesn't...

[WinnieinWA]

My son's best friend's mom has been with NCL Miami for 28 years and was laid off' date=' along with 50+ other employees in the main office.

 

I understand many of the layoffs were long time workers.....:(

 

That's a lot of people to let go all at once....[/quote']

 

That's a very small amount. When Boeing in Seattle and Everett lays off thousands.......that's a lot!

[WinnieinWA]

my view of this is a little different. I think there has been a breakdown in the social contract between the workers and the bosses. There at one time was some relationship between what the lowest employee was paid and the highest. No more. Instead of letting go two vp's that make 2 million per year they have to lay off 145 front line employees. sometimes it is necessary to re aline the number of employees(the amount of work expands to cover the number of employees) but many job cuts don't wind up with a cut in payroll only people getting paid...

 

ps I don't think the most senior employees salary should ever be more than 100 times the lower one. This doesn't mean sernio employees shouldn't get stock incentives so they can make more if the company prospers but they shouldn't get more even when it doesn't...

 

Totally agree!

[discjoker]

There is NO LOYALITY in business any more.

 

That is quite a broad statement but for the most part I agree. Keep in mind though that it works both ways. Employees have no loyalty anymore as well.

[buzzor]

That is quite a broad statement but for the most part I agree. Keep in mind though that it works both ways. Employees have no loyalty anymore as well.

Got to agree with you there discjoker. I have been on both sides of the coin, been through a few cuts as an employee, and cut a few heads as an employer.

 

Like it or not there is no "loyalty" on either side of the coin. Employees leave businesses all the time for better offers from competitors bring company contacts and trade secrets along with them. Employers cut long time employees all the time because they are the "expensive ones".

 

People who complain about employee cuts usually have never been on the other side of the coin or don't bother to realize that the act of letting go their fellow employee is actually saving their job.

 

Life is not fair.

[*Wink*]

Got to agree with you there discjoker. I have been on both sides of the coin, been through a few cuts as an employee, and cut a few heads as an employer.

 

Like it or not there is no "loyalty" on either side of the coin. Employees leave businesses all the time for better offers from competitors bring company contacts and trade secrets along with them. Employers cut long time employees all the time because they are the "expensive ones".

 

People who complain about employee cuts usually have never been on the other side of the coin or don't bother to realize that the act of letting go their fellow employee is actually saving their job.

 

Life is not fair.

I guess this is where the saying, "Don't take it personally, it's only business" comes from. The all mighty dollar is always the motivator.. for all of us!

[newmexicoNita]

Totally agree!

I agree as well. I will add a couple of things to this story: 1-anyone with that many years seniority was probably offered an early retirement versus actually lay off, unless she was very young, which is possible.

 

About 15 years ago, I was working for a major hotel chain who had never done a layoff: well, guess what (and it seems to always happen about this time of year) not only did they cut 30 people in one day, many of us were demoted. Our oldest daughter works has been very lucky, She has 28 years with her company and probably will retire in about 5 years, but there was a period about 4 or 5 years ago where whe worried every single fall as the lay offs started. this went on I guess 4 or 5 years. Her husband, working for the same company sweats it every fall. Even when the economy is good, there are lay-offs, re-organization etc.

 

Where anyone gets the idea this is penny wise and pound foolish I have no idea.

 

For all who are affected, my heart goes out to them. I agree, there is very little loyality anyone on either side. About the time I got demoted the vice President of the company I worked for said the same thing: always keep that resume up to date and your eyes open. He did and about 2 years later he changed jobs (just before he would have been out the door).

 

Life just isn't the way it was 20, 30 or more years ago.

 

Nita

[G'ma]

my view of this is a little different. I think there has been a breakdown in the social contract between the workers and the bosses. There at one time was some relationship between what the lowest employee was paid and the highest. No more. Instead of letting go two vp's that make 2 million per year they have to lay off 145 front line employees. sometimes it is necessary to re aline the number of employees(the amount of work expands to cover the number of employees) but many job cuts don't wind up with a cut in payroll only people getting paid...

 

ps I don't think the most senior employees salary should ever be more than 100 times the lower one. This doesn't mean sernio employees shouldn't get stock incentives so they can make more if the company prospers but they shouldn't get more even when it doesn't...

 

There was never a "social contract" in businesses who have hundreds of employees. There were only Unions.....and that situation was solved by corporate America with the dismissal of Air Traffic Controllers in the 80's.

 

Anyone who thinks they aren't dispensable is kidding himself unless he owns the business.

 

NCL's layoff is peanuts. I worked for "the largest travel agency in the world" and was laid off when this company decided to outsource our jobs to India, Manila, Mexico City and Eastern Europe. I was one of 400 that got the axe in one day....all senior employees (making decent wages). At the end of 4 months, 5000 employees had been axed worldwide.......

[smeyer418]

There was never a "social contract" in businesses who have hundreds of employees. There were only Unions.....and that situation was solved by corporate America with the dismissal of Air Traffic Controllers in the 80's.

 

Anyone who thinks they aren't dispensable is kidding himself unless he owns the business.

 

NCL's layoff is peanuts. I worked for "the largest travel agency in the world" and was laid off when this company decided to outsource our jobs to India' date=' Manila, Mexico City and Eastern Europe. I was one of 400 that got the axe in one day....all senior employees (making decent wages). At the end of 4 months, 5000 employees had been axed worldwide.......[/quote']

There was a social contract even without Unions...but maybe in reaction to Unions. given that the number of Unionized employees is at a historic low(since the 1930's) maybe you are right....but Unions for most people is a curse word...

[newmexicoNita]

knew the subject of unions versus non union would come up on this thread sooner or later. I was going to put my 2 cents worth in, but have decided to stay out of this one.

 

Nita

[14ersco]

There was a social contract even without Unions...but maybe in reaction to Unions. given that the number of Unionized employees is at a historic low(since the 1930's) maybe you are right....but Unions for most people is a curse word...

 

Yes Union's are not looked at favorably by many people, but ours did help us avoid a layoff. When our office got wind of layoff plans we went and got ourselves unionized. Went through 3 years of hammering (buy outs, reorganizing, etc.) by HQ, but we had national Union attorneys on our side. So last year HQ gave up (for now) eliminating our office. We are still working, wary of HQ, and unionized.

 

Plus NCL gives me a Union discount!

[logcabin]

RCCL just went through a round of layoffs also. It seems as if this might be a trend in the industry for a while.