Well, I've not exactly lost my job, but I've lost my post, which is not quite the same thing.
I work on a team of three people. We'd been notified that, as of 1st April, we would only be funded for 2.5 people, which meant all three of us would be expected to chip in at other odd jobs, to balance the books.
However, I've just had a call from the boss, to say it's been decided they're not going to do it that way, and that from 1st April, they're only going to be funded for two people - and the one to get the axe is me.
I still work for the company, but am now on one month's notice of redeployment, which means the company - and me - are supposed to find replacement work for me within that time.
If that fails, I will go "on the bench", which is the pool of people who don't have current assignments. You can only be "on the bench" a limited amount of time (I forget how long, but it's only a few weeks), before the redundancy process is initiated.
I can't help thinking: "Would this have happened if I'd been well?"
I know I've not been deliberately selected on the basis of health, which would be outright illegal. However, I feel that my declining health and dwindling work output have meant I haven't been considered such a core part of the group as I used to be, and therefore I was the natural choice, when it came to deciding which of us to dump.
I don't think my boss (who is also leaving the team) had any say in this, and he sounded upset.
I have to spend the next few days handing over my duties to my remaining colleagues, but to move on to...nothing.
I think my poor health, and my difficulty travelling, or even working in a normal office, instead of from home, will constitute a big obstacle to reassignment.
I'm wondering if I should hope it will lead to redundancy. I haven't exactly been coping well, and I'd get about two years' pay, which I realise is generous compared to the state minimum.
But two years' money, at 45? It's tempting, as a lump sum, but not much if I don't have anything else to go to, is it?