I'd really like to be able to say that this would make people start leaving, but no one here is really going to do that. I'll bet senior management knew (and was relying on) that.
Lesson learned: In startups, people are more likely to leave on principles. In big companies (even non-profits), almost no one leaves unless they're fired.
While no one quit due to any one of those changes, it did change the place from somewhere fun to work to somewhere that wasn't fun. As a result about three months later a large number of the architecture group and other key people quit within a 1-2 week span. So while no one may quit the day the water coolers are removed, that type of change will lead to higher turn over later on, especially among the top folks, who can find a new job pretty easily.
That might not seem to be such a big deal (as compared to an external, traditional PR problem), but if your best employees are the ones leaving on bad terms, then most likely the people they know are above average too. Now the company will have a harder time recruiting great people.
Sounds to me like they put out resumes shortly after the cost-cutting, it just took a few months to get a better job.
Be careful working at a job you "believe in", it puts you at a fearful disadvantage.
They called this "Frequent Cleaning"....