[Mick]

...

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.
...

Mick, 

First let me say that I'm sorry to hear that you had to let people go.   That has to suck and take a toll.

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but I work for a company that's gone through many rounds of various layoffs, workforce reductions, or whatever the term of the day.  The decision to reduce headcount invariably comes from a pretty high level in management.  My impression is that, at least lately, the decision of specifically who gets terminated also comes at least one level, if not two, higher than the reporting manager - who finds out who to notify shortly before notice is given.

May I ask if it was your decision how to implement the cuts, or whether you had a say?

Funny you should mention.  I had an early say, definitely not the final say. I gave them a list of my preferred eight.  I wanted to harm the overall group as little as possible, and I wanted to harm the individuals as little as possible (in other words, most of my lowest paid individuals were on the list, both because they contributed the least to our overall mission, they were the most replaceable and they could replace their income most easily).

Sr. management wanted me to eliminate three people that I wanted to keep (I kept all three). One is superb at her job but not a great writer and is a bit offputting to the lawyers.  So I don't let her write and I try to minimize her interaction with the attorneys.  The other two, let's just say could have been victims of politics.  They're still with me.  You literally wouldn't believe the circumstances if I told you.

And separately, my top two choices for furlough were vetoed.  See prior comment.

[Mick]

...

That would be 26 reports.  Not quite a thousand or even hundreds.  And that's down from 34, because I had to furlough eight poor individuals.  It was most definitely not my decision.  It was made by someone considerably above me, fueled by the policies of people much more Elite than either of us.

My current workshirts don't have collars, blue or white.  And I live paycheck to paycheck.
...

Mick, 

First let me say that I'm sorry to hear that you had to let people go.   That has to suck and take a toll.

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but I work for a company that's gone through many rounds of various layoffs, workforce reductions, or whatever the term of the day.  The decision to reduce headcount invariably comes from a pretty high level in management.  My impression is that, at least lately, the decision of specifically who gets terminated also comes at least one level, if not two, higher than the reporting manager - who finds out who to notify shortly before notice is given.

May I ask if it was your decision how to implement the cuts, or whether you had a say?

Funny you should mention.  I had an early say, definitely not the final say. I gave them a list of my preferred eight.  I wanted to harm the overall group as little as possible, and I wanted to harm the individuals as little as possible (in other words, most of my lowest paid individuals were on the list, both because they contributed the least to our overall mission, they were the most replaceable and they could replace their income most easily).

Sr. management wanted me to eliminate three people that I wanted to keep (I kept all three). One is superb at her job but not a great writer and is a bit offputting to the lawyers.  So I don't let her write and I try to minimize her interaction with the attorneys.  The other two, let's just say could have been victims of politics.  They're still with me.  You literally wouldn't believe the circumstances if I told you.

And separately, my top two choices for furlough were vetoed.  See prior comment.