The agreement provides a $250 signing bonus to drivers who have completed a minimum of 50 trips since July 1, 2025. Uber drivers are also eligible for quarterly bonuses based on the number of trips they have completed. For example, drivers who have completed more than 750 trips will receive quarterly bonuses of $600. The union also negotiated an annual 5-per-cent increase in wait time and cancellation fees that drivers get if a passenger is late or cancels a trip, and an annual $500 wellness fund for sick time and benefits.
“We heard from drivers that they wanted to tie benefits to the number of drives they do, rather than the distance or time, so we really tried to push for a compensation system that reflected that,” Mr. Godoy said, adding that it was important for the union to ensure that driver ratings determined by customers were not tied to any of the benefits in the collective agreement.
That’s almost like having a government that passes laws to protect the workers and the people! I wish Canada had that type of government then we wouldn’t need little power pockets of unions hither and yon.
Yeah because the government is so very trustworthy when it comes to the interests of those who aren’t rich and powerful.
Yeah and so are the unions.
Well that’s just nonsense. I guess if we are going to just spout nonsense then I’ll need to start pulling my weight.
There is no human caused climate change.
Vaccines cause autism.
Governments and pharmaceutical companies are withholding the cure for cancer.
Israel isn’t a genocidal apartheid state.
Wow. You jumped on that bandwagon pretty quickly. What is the difference between a corrupt government and a corrupt union? They both exist. I hope you made a good point but, like you, all I saw was nonsense. Go figure.
This argument doesn’t make any logical sense.
Your argument appears to be:
Some labour unions are bad/corrupt, therefore no trade unions should not exist.
You seem to acknowledge that some governments are bad/corrupt, but don’t apply the same logic to them. If the same logic was used it would be:
Some governments are bad/corrupt, therefore they should not exist.
However you instead apply the logic of:
Some governments are bad/corrupt, but they should still exist.
I just want some logical consistency.
I’m not arguing that there aren’t bad labour unions who don’t effectively represent their members. I’m arguing that the existence of bad/corrupt labour unions does not mean that labour unions should not exist at all.