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.