That's not what the article is saying. It says 34 employees (not 34%) primarily from a pool of 47 workers on 5-year contracts will be "made redundant". (the res

That's not what the article is saying. It says 34 employees (not 34%) primarily from a pool of 47 workers on 5-year contracts will be "made redundant". (the rest may not have their contracts renewed) That's more than 30% of the 131 employees. The article also cites other companies doing the same thing, even if no staff cuts are involved for now.