You all should know by now that The Price of Fame is… Termination. Being the vindictive little bitch that I am, I decided that I would try to get unemployment since I so meaninglessly got fired. I did not fully expect to get said moneys, since I suppose it WAS partially my own fault that I got fired. But I am slightly baffled by the “reasonings and findings” that the state of Minnesota has found to not issue me dollars. Here is the letter I received from them:
Under Minnesota Statute, and applicant is not eligible for unemployment benefits if the applicant is discharged for employment conduct. The law defines employment misconduct as intentional or negligent conduct that is a serious violation of standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect. A single incident with no significant negative effect on the employment is not employment misconduct. The employer discharged the applicant because of employment misconduct. The applicant’s conduct was intentional or negligent, and was a serious violation of the standards of behavior that the employer has the right to expect.
The applicant was discharged because she maintained a public blog site that contained critical commentary about her employer and the employer’s customers.
Well, la dee da. I understand that I am ineligible. What I don’t understand is that they specifically verify that ” a single incident with no significant negative effect is not employment misconduct”. They are virtually pointing out that I did nothing wrong. As I stated when filling out my papers, I NEVER was warned that I was misconducting myself in any way, which to me means: Yo! It was a first offense. As for significant negative effect- I am sure the remaining suck-ass manager is causing much more negative effect than I EVER could. When I had customers coming in and I quote, “wouldn’t buy books when that weird guy is here.”, I would consider that a negative effect, wouldn’t you?
As far as intentional conduct, it was not the intent of my blog to scare customers away. I would like to point out that my blog continues to live, whether I have a job at that bookstore or not. This proves that I am neither intentionally or negligently dealing with customers.
A serious violation of standards? So it’s quite aright for a manager to inform me that he redesigned his closet doors with mirrors so he could get a nice view of he and his wife having sex? It’s totally fine for a person of power to tell me he is “concerned for me” because he believes my sexual preferences lean toward women? It is in the store’s best interest to keep on the payroll a man who has had sexual misconduct claims made against him in the past? What the fuck was I thinking? Of course my nameless rants against customers are worse. They absolutely were correct in firing me. I have nothing more to say.
10 responses to “Determination of Ineligibility”
Does it make you a blogger super hero for getting fired because of your rebellious blog? I think YES.
& I say -FiGHT IT! Even if you don’t get the dollars, you’ll be a giant paperwork pain in their asses. How satifying would that be???
I always wanted to be a superhero…
I would fight it, but it would also make much paperwork for me….
I was expecting something like: “Your claim for unemployment compensation is unsupported because you can survive for a month on your own breasts alone.” Or something like that. Dunno.
You know I would have visited the store just to watch the dysfunction. And maybe buy a book.
Umm… Will you tell me exactly HOW to suvive on my breasts alone?
And don’t kid yourself. You would have visited the store just to see the cleavage.
Like a really fat person could live off themself with just water… never mind.
As for the other note, DAMMIT YOU GOT ME.
Hooray for boobies!!
Oh, I see. Unfortuneately, they don’t pay the bills.
And yeah, I know how you think. 🙂
Minnesota’s Labor Laws fucking suck. Since we are a “right to work” state, employers can fire us for any god damn reason. Your hair could be the wrong color. Your jeans aren’t tight enough. You aren’t the “right” type of secretary. My boyfriend has a boss that smokes weed in the office. Swears at his employees. Lets his dogs run and poop in the building wherever they please. And thinks of women as “airheaded bimbos who aren’t good for anything but sex”. And can my boyfreind do anything about it? Nope. Because if he said something, he could be fired without reason. I had a boss that made sexual comments to the female employees and had several complaints against him. When he made a comment about my underwear (apparantly he wants to be able to see it poking above your jean line), I complained and was promptly fired the next day. I’m very sorry you lost your job over your blog and I hope that this turns into something positive. And I’m glad you don’t have to hear the sex stories anymore. Hmm…maybe I should write into the Good Question segment on the news about this…
Yes, I think you should, since you live close to me.
I’ve had to fight for unemployment before when I was fired for calling the owner’s daughter a racist at my very first job. She accused the only black man in the store of stealing something when two white men were more probable suspects … anyway … I’ve seen this type of double talk too many times. The reality is they are saying your actions had a negative impact. So, despite being a single incident, they get to deny you money. Your ex-employer is probably saying you harmed his business because you wrote about customers who noticed and complained.
Long story short, the laws in this country protect the employer and not the employee. I tried to sue my employer before for defamation because of damage my boss’ public lies did to my career and had a lawyer tell me … “You have all the facts on your side, you don’t have the law on your side.”
In the end, I helped someone else sue who had more of the law on their side and she won.
BTW, kudos on your follow up post to your termination. I admired the fact that you didn’t change a damn thing despite what happened.
I’m not sorry for my blog or what I write, because it’s the truth.