>Which means the other 650 employees they fired did not have productivity problems No- it just suggests/implies the remainder had an average productivity of gr

>Which means the other 650 employees they fired did not have productivity problems No- it just suggests/implies the remainder had an average productivity of greater than (2hrs-value/8hrs-pay). That doesn't mean they were or weren't still performing below expectations. The fact that they were selected for layoffs over the retained employees suggests they were the lowest performing segment, regardless of whether that relatively low performance was satisfactory in an absolute sense or not. >What's with this weaselly language, too... "At least 250 employees" also means "No more than 250 employees". If it was more, they would have just said the bigger number to prove their point. And using this logic, if those 650 employees were collectively productive enough to generate a net-positive value, they wouldn't have been fired.