Termination of Health Insurance in Area 605

Many of you have learned what to do if you are sick or injured for long periods of time and need to keep your job in the article Escape of From Area 605.

However, there are some pitfalls that the CTA mismanagement has been digging for those who in Area 605, but are not "Injured on Duty." That is, those who are very sick or injured due to circumstances outside of work. Those coworkers are being dropped from the group health insurance after a year from taking leave for illness or injury (Currently provided by Cigna). 

Long-story-short, by terminating health insurance for members in Area 605, the CTA is in clear violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 

However, when bringing this up to Brother Mark Weems, our Local 308 Vice President, he retorted that the CTA has the upper hand on kicking us off health insurance because we are not considered "active" employees while in Area 605. He cites Article 15.1

 I counter that with a clear indicator from Article 15.10 that those in Area 605 are in fact "active."

I have debated this dilemma with Local 308 Vice President Mark Weems and we have agreed that what the CTA is doing to us, is wrong. We have also agreed that collective action is the only way to have any real chance of changing it for our advantage as workers. He explained on the phone that he has been involved in trying to modify 15.1 to eliminate the "active" word and replace it with "employee."

I am not entirely satisfied with that effort because the Contract is clear that the CTA is wrong in my opinion. 

I confirmed that he intends on doing that again. So I am going to hold him to it. Yet, I still know that nothing will happen if we don't fight like unions are supposed to fight. So if the 2024 Contract does not include such a change, then I will be unhappy—and so should you.

Other than that, I can safely say that I am more enthusiastic about Local 241 and Local 308 members grieving all instances when our insurance is terminated while in Area 605. Brother Mark has been engaged in far more grievance arbitration dealings than me and has merit for his argument. However, so does mine. I will not back down: The Contract language favors us more than the CTA.

The available options for those whose health insurance is terminated, he advised COBRA, County Care or the ACA (Obamacare). Unfortunately, for now, that is all we have in front of us.

However, as a Revolutionary Unionist who approaches grievances as catalysts for organizing collective action, I think it is important to fight the CTA through militant, direct- and public-action. In the very least we should protest publicly about it! 

We are basically being encouraged to come to work injured or sick—or roll the dice to see if we make it past the termination point into bankruptcy.

Nevertheless, I would even hold on to the argument that a class-action grievance is more appropriate. I would be willing to assist anyone that wants to pursue it.