Why do the people actually doing the work get fired first?

When an organisation has to economise, the first thing it seems to think about is firing staff, and not those at the top of the pole, they always pick on those at the bottom who are actually doing the work or producing the goods.  This is easier than looking into the various ways that money is being wasted, such as over-use of electricity or considering if certain functions in the administration actually need to be performed.  There might be whole departments that have outlived their usefulness.  But those in charge don't want to fire themselves or their pals.

Two friends of mine told me of their experiences yesterday, which seem to point up this problem - for problem it is.

One works for a Council.  His department is being reorganised and there will, in future, be 7 posts, currently employing 8 people.  They have all been invited to re-apply for their own jobs involved in different aspects of keeping the streets clean.  My friend attended an interview with his boss (£36,000), 2 other administrators, and 2 other people.  A panel of 5!  He was asked "What do you think you can bring to this job?" and he could only reply "I have been doing it, apparently satisfactorily, for 9 years".  All the "applicants" nervously await the decision.  More high-level discussions costing how much per hour?

The other applied for a job cooking for a fast food chain.  She was given a chair and table and some straws and cellotape and asked to construct a house out of them.  She protested,  "But I'm applying for a cooking job!" and was told she was being tested for manual dexterity.  It might seem from the outside that the psychologist who thought this up could be more dispensable than cooks in such an organisation.