Hearing rumors of a change in corporate domicile from UK to USA. How will this move affect jobs in both countries
15 replies (most recent on top)
As a past post I made was removed it’s clear this site is now Woke. No swear words, no slander, no facts, etc. goodbye Layoff.com, you are no longer trusted as anonymous is not guaranteed
@1a5 is this an Austin Powers joke?
Local dentists rejoice!
Maybe they’ll build a Whataburger on the Woodcreek campus to replace the cafeteria?
absolutely. as has been said many many times, moving a headquarters is a financial and legal affair that doesn’t create jobs and moves very few jobs.
the only thing that matters is how shareholders will respond. once you properly understand these things you will see the viability of the move
@th I think it’s a little disingenuous to compare UK to US in terms of employment with Shell. Shell UK employees are hiding their employment from family and friends and at the very least, actively avoid discussion on the matter. By contrast, there is some sense of pride to work for major O&G in the US. Albeit less than what it used to be but still far higher than the UK. In fairness my dataset is only 2 colleagues for personal reference but seems supported by public lack of support for us over there. I think the drop in employment in the UK is impacted by our unfavorable public view as well. Not saying it’s even a majority of the reason, just saying it’s another factor that we don’t have to worry about here. Not just the offshoring to India.
When Shell relocated its headquarters to the UK, it effectively severed its national identity. We used to take pride in being “Royal Dutch,” but since the move, no executive has referred to Shell as a British company. Instead, they describe it as a purely multinational corporation that happens to be based in London. This identity shift has made it even easier to outsource to India.
By contrast, companies such as TotalEnergies maintain strong ties to their home countries (France, in Total’s case) where large-scale offshoring tends to provoke public resistance and even soft government intervention.
In relative terms, Shell’s UK workforce has actually declined more than its Dutch workforce since the relocation so the move has done little to support local jobs. And for those in the US hoping to benefit if Shell were ever to move there, the reality is clear: only shareholders would stand to gain, not US employees.
Shell would never leave Holand
Shell would never drop/lose Royal Dutch Shell
Shell would never domicile in the UK
Shell would never domicile in the USA
because it’s citizens won’t throw emissions lawsuits at it
because trump won’t randomly pivot against oil and gas (crazy thing to mention as possible by the way)
because a NYC mayor has nothing to do with anything
because shell is not an AI company
because of tax benefits
because the stock going up doesn’t mean people don’t want it to go up more.
because the stock is going up now because of cuts which are not a long term plan
Shell shares have performed better then us listed oil companies in last 12 months. Why move to a country with a mad man in charge that judging by the recent New York mayor vote is about to pivot in a very different political direction and about to have a stock market crash due to the ai bubble popping?
@bt Yes the US is very litigious. But not against oil and gas companies in the same fashion in which we’re litigated against in the EU. Our industry is sued all the time but we have overall support from the populace which has significant impact on outcomes of those lawsuits. These are also a much smaller scale on average. Mostly former workers suing for illness. We have funds to pay those out since the 50s. Also, only a handful of states in which our industry resides face restrictions. These are mainly WA, CA, NJ if we’re talking refining. AK is tough to explore but that’s more to do logistical access than regulatory burden. There is regulatory burden but it isn’t prohibitive. It is prohibitive relative to TX and LA but that isn’t a fair comparison. But no, overall US is far more accepting of our industry than the UK or EU at all. Time to go back to Shell pre-1985 but this time it will be ALL of Shell, not just the US arm.
do you really think that is gonna be worse than the tax and legal benefits? why do you think US based oil and gas companies trade at a premium to foreign ones despite having higher labor costs? hint - it is these benefits
Does the legal landscape in the US pose a threat? The US is so much more litigious.
the circumstantial evidence is strong
shell ran away from netherlands jurisdiction to london only 4-5 year ago after the green mafia attacked with scope 3 nonsense trials. this means the LT could do it again.
wael has said many times that he feels us energy stocks command a premium versus european ones, as have many other analysts. i should not need to say that this guy wants the stock to go up
woodcreek has undergone lots of remodeling, will soon happen again in building in C, and just got a huge pecten sign
changing HQ from NL to london changed almost no jobs. i think a dozen extremely senior LT had to move. zero impact on us regular folks. it’s a legal and financial change.
Shell Houston has plenty of space and is actually preparing for this eventuality