> The email service laid off 60% of the bargaining unit, the group of employees represented by the labor union. In total, 10 people lost their jobs as a result of Fastmail shutting down two US-based teams
> “With zero hours of working hours time zone overlap for much of the year, we faced difficulties in collaboration, leading to delays in decision-making and project execution,” Jenkins wrote. “The need for out-of-hours meetings on both sides was impacting everyone’s productivity and work-life balance.”
> Product development and marketing activities for Fastmail will now be Melbourne-based.
> “Fortunately, we were able to negotiate for a much better severance package than we would have gotten had we not unionized when we did,” the post read. “We are grateful for the work that the Communication Workers of America put in on our behalf to get us the best deal they could.”
> Still, Fastmail appears to be hiring for tech roles in Philly. It posted a senior systems administrator job last week, which Jenkins said in his note would be a union role. The union will continue to negotiate a contract for the remaining bargaining unit employees.
(Fastmail customer, good luck to those they are parting ways with, still a strong supporter of them being unionized)
Can someone explain just how and why being unionized could lead to better severance? I could see how the union's loyalties would be torn between protecting the members who will continue to be employed and those who won't really be in the picture any longer.
It is something negotiated BEFORE layoffs. In regular contract negotations you put in terms that say "in the case of a layoff, X, Y, Z". Everyone is still aligned at that point.
