1) You can always be a subject of victimisation. However, having your application for VR turned down would be very difficult to construe as victimisation. A company is within their rights to refuse VR if they believe someone is too important and valuable to the business. They are also within their rights to decide they had overestimated work requirements and apply a CR programme. In fact, that is quite a normal process - apply a VR programme then, if necessary, a CR programme.2) It is less a matter of utilisation as perceived business. Someone who is "on the bench" as regards client work but comes up with weekly leads or publishes regular thought leadership is less likely to be let go as someone who comes in at 12, goes home at 2:30 and relishes in telling everyone who'll listen how little they have to do for their pay packet. Those are obviously extremes, but you get the idea. You can do the maths yourself as the point when a given individual becomes unprofitable, but that's only a rough guide to how the decision gets made - even at the peak, a company will have some unprofitable and some profitable staff. I've seen Analysts on the bench for their first 14 months, but nobody fires them because a) it costs a lot to hire them b) it doesn't cost much to continue employing them c) they don't have control over their own resourcing d) they're filling that time with training and e) people appreciate having the tea-making and delivery service3) Undoubtedly. Look at how ACN has acted in the past. They make the redundancy decision at the margin, with a number of smaller cuts rather than one high-risk reduction. That matches the way demand tails off.