×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blogger Loses Unemployment Check Because of Ads

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the time-for-an-injection-of-common-sense dept.

Businesses 554

Techdirt is reporting that one unfortunate, unemployed New York lawyer recently had her unemployment benefits greatly reduced because of the incredible $1/day she was earning via ads on her blog. "The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer' who didn't exist. Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an 'investigation' into her 'business' — during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely. She's now pulled the Google AdSense from her blog (total earned over the life of the blog $238.75)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

554 comments

An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (2, Insightful)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723295)

...too incredulous to believe. Especially in New York.

nothing new (4, Informative)

poptones (653660) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723463)

Back in 2000 I was denied unemployment benefits because I made the mistake of telling the interviewer I had tried to get some contract positions. Never mind that I DIDN'T GET THEM, simply the fact I was now "an independent contractor" meant I was employed.

Never tell them anything. No, woe si me; I'm unemployed and unemployable, I simply don't know what I am going to do...

SHE OUGHTA HIRE A LAWYER !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723563)

And stick it to the man !!

Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723467)

She's a woman and she's not Jewish. If I'm getting a New York lawyer, he'd better either be a man or cute enough to sway court opinion. And in New York, the Jews are the way to go.

AC obviously.

Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723545)

If I'm getting a New York lawyer, I'm getting a New York Country Lawyer

Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (3, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723833)

The answer here should be obvious.

She should start a blog about her legal troubles and put google adsense on it.

By the time enough people read the blog and contact the legislature to fix this ridiculous problem, she won't need the unemployment benefits.

Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (1)

KiahZero (610862) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723537)

Have you been paying attention? Lawyers are getting laid off left and right, and the legal profession as a whole is going through one of the worst recessions since the Depression.

Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (3, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723699)

Maybe it's about time for that bubble to burst.

"...I used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise...I mean lawyers, after all, don't produce anything...and I worry that we are devoting too many of out best minds to this enterprise...I don't have any complaint about the quality of the council, except maybe we're wasting some of our best minds"

-- Antonin Scalia, in a June interview with C-SPAN

Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723869)

depends the type.

cash tight companies are very reluctant to settle right now. This means lots of money being spent on trials. This is boom times for litigation consulting.

Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723675)

...too incredulous to believe. Especially in New York.

Are you kidding?? I'm a lawyer in NY, and the job market here is bad to the point of ridiculousness. Any open position will have hundreds of applicants, and the worst thing is it's probably never going to recover. Too many law schools, too many ignorant law school applicants, and too many law school administrators who are the only ones who benefit from the lawyer explosion.

Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (4, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723865)

I'm quite happy to have a world with less lawyers. The profession itself is evidence that the Law is too complex.

If a law is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone defend themselves in a court with it, liberty is damaged.

The state is correct (1, Troll)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723301)

Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.

Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?

Re:The state is correct (2, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723369)

Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.

...in the traditional sense of income: you either work or run a business. Microtransactions aren't really included in that model.

So, if I make a billion cents, I don't pay taxes? (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723597)

Cool! Let me move my supermarket headquarter over there.

First rule of business. Pennies add up.

Re:The state is correct (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723427)

Goatse [goatse.fr] benefits are meant to help people whose anuses are still tight.

Others are getting much more than $238 for posing naked. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?

Re:The state is correct (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723429)

Business owners are exempt from unemployment pay. This lawyer's $1 a month income could be considered a poorly-run business but still a business. What I'm curious to know is who reported her. Sounds like a real dick.

Re:The state is correct (4, Informative)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723509)

She reported herself. She was being a good person and reporting ALL income. The rare breed who'd probably pay local state tax on items purchased out of state.

From the Forbes article (it's linked from the linked article): When the check came in, Karin realized she had a legal obligation to disclose the income to New York State, even though doing so might reduce the weekly unemployment benefits she received.

Re:The state is correct (4, Funny)

knightf0x (218696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723663)

So an honest lawyer...I guess it is true then. 99% of lawyers make the rest of them look bad.

Re:The state is correct (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723665)

She sounds like a very nice person.

I don't think she understands what it is that lawyers do though.

Re:The state is correct (2, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723541)

Right - She's self-employed. Just like that guy you walk-past every day who holds up a cardboard sign asking for help and eats dog food.

In fairness though, it sounds like his business model is better than hers.

Memo to self - If I'm ever unfortunate enough to need unemployment, do NOT let ANYONE pay me for ANYTHING.

Re:The state is correct (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723779)

>>>do NOT let ANYONE pay me for ANYTHING.

You can still mow grass and get paid - you just can't tell anyone about it. Not that I would know anything about that. Nope. Nada. Nah-uh.

Re:The state is correct (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723669)

Is that a state by state thing? This issue has me seriously scared. The revenue (not much, a couple hundred a month) from one of my sites goes into a business checking account that is basically setup as a sole proprietorship (in IL). If I've been collecting unemployment because I don't have an actual job, while earning revenue from that site, am I fucked? What is my best course of action if that is the case? I don't even know what sort of lawyer would deal with this kind of law.

Re:The state is correct (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723807)

You collect unemployment.
You have unreported earnings.

If you get caught, you're fucked.

Your best course of action would have been to post as AC.

Oh well, might as well turn yourself in now.

Re:The state is correct (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723837)

Hmmmm.

I wonder if selling used games and videos on ebay constitutes income? I could probably argue "I paid $20 but only sold it for $10, so that's a loss not an income," but a lot of hassle. Maybe I won't be doing my annual Christmas clean-out/sale after all.

Re:The state is correct (-1, Troll)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723777)

I feel like I'm pointing out the elephant in the living room here, but wtf is up with a lawyer collecting unemployment checks? That is the dickish behavior. Unemployment insurance is supposed to be for people on hard times due to losing their jobs. When you make as much as a lawyer does, you should be doing something called "saving money" -- it shouldn't be much of a hardship for you, given that part-time elected officials (such as in state legislatures that don't work the full year) tend to be lawyers because they can so easily take a lot of unpaid time off from work.

Of course, the unemployment insurance laws may very well not make this distinction, making her within her rights to apply for it, but still, it seems like a slimy thing to do and makes it harder on the people who really need that money. I mean, what next? CEOs taking unemployment for the one month between two $50,000/month jobs?

On top of that, if the other poster is correct that she dutifully *reported* the blogging income, and is a lawyer, meaning she should be able to quickly know the ins and outs of the law -- then she should have known damn well that you're not supposed to collect unemployment while collecting a separate steady income, no matter how small. She was trying to double-dip: collect unemployment, *and* prohibited extra income on the side. Knowing this, she should should have turned off that revenue source long ago, not just when she got caught.

Re:The state is correct (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723949)

So...out of curiousity, how many lawyers do you actually know and what do they make?

Maybe look up in your yellow pages for some local ones without the fancy one page ads and ask them.

if the other poster is correct that she dutifully *reported* the blogging income, and is a lawyer, meaning she should be able to quickly know the ins and outs of the law
A divorce lawyer should know all the ins and outs of patent law then?

Take that axe and grind it where it belongs: the bureaucrats.

Re:The state is correct (3, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723787)

Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.

Unemployment benefits are for people who are... unemployed.

That she has some income shouldn't prevent benefits, especially when that income is next to nothing. She was averaging $30 a month, that's not exactly making ends-meet. Stripping her benefits for such a low sum would be akin to stripping unemployment benefits because someone bought you lunch.

I would feel differently if she were running a blog as a business, or if that blog brought in more money than unemployment would bring in. If you have already determined that there is a minimum amount of money a person should recieve while looking for another job, any supplimental income should simply reduce the benefits by whatever the supplimental income is, untill the difference is negative - i.e. making more money with the suppliment than full unemployment would give. Then it is simply re-classified as the primary income and you are considered self-employed.

To look at it another way, do they strip your unemployment because you're earning 2% in a savings account? I should hope not. That's what this is closer to. Either way, she was still unemployed, not even self-employed. She paid for the unemployment insurance, she should be able to collect it when she is unemployed.

I hope she puts ad-sense back up before she is slashdotted, that could make up for a lot of the shit NYC is pulling here.

Re:The state is correct (5, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723791)

Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?

Don't be such a dumbass. All they had to do was deduct $238 from one of her checks, but there's no option to do that with unemployment. The second you report any income, regardless of the source, you're employed. So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits. Too bad, buddy. You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.

So there's is absolutely zero incentive for people on unemployment to take what work they can find. If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs, deducting what they make from their benefit check so they don't lose money working, but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through, then more people would be out working.

But the system we have today punishes people trying to do the right thing. Don't defend a broken system. They could use unemployment to encourage people go out and start a business, instead they discriminate against people wanting to work but unable to find a permanent job that lasts longer than 3 months.

Re:The state is correct (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723895)

Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.

I don't think so. Laws vary from state to state, but in Oregon you can draw Unemployment if you've been laid off and get a part time job.

Each week you have to tell them how many hours you worked and how much you got paid. If it's less than 40 hours then they deduct a percentage of what you make from your compensation. You can't make more than half of your fully employed salary this way, but it can help pay the bills.

Not so fast, says the IRS... (1)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723309)

Did you declare those $238 on your annual income?
Removing the ads from your blog makes me think you've got some extra sources of revenue to hide... :-P

well maybe the blogger shouldnt have made money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723311)

i mean what is unemployment if you are recieving money.. maybe a job that isnt blogging would be better for her?

Re:well maybe the blogger shouldnt have made money (4, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723445)

You're unemployed. A friend gives you $20 to help move some furniture. You've now received money and are no longer unemployed.

Yeah...that makes sense...

Re:well maybe the blogger shouldnt have made money (1)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723739)

Technically your right. Also, technically, you should report that 20 bucks you made on your 1040 as well and pay taxes on it. I worked with the Texas Workforce Commission and allot of the "on the ground" people don't put in those small amounts. The paperwork is just insane. Takes 15 minutes to fill out the paperwork and for it all to go though the channels to do that 20 dollar removal off your next check than it does to just ignore it:P

Re:well maybe the blogger shouldnt have made money (4, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723849)

So all we have to do is give everyone in the country $1/day and voila: 100% employment rate!

So the big question is: (-1, Flamebait)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723321)

is $1/day unemployed? In some parts of the world you can actually make due with that.

I think he just has a really crappy job and should quit.

Re:So the big question is: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723359)

What part of "New York" confuses you?

Re:So the big question is: (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723781)

The part where it could be Buffalo or Uttica. ...I guess all of that noise about the rest of the state being pissed off
that Hillary's Senate opponent wasn't aware of the rest of the state
actually has some merit to it. [snicker]

Re:So the big question is: (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723375)

Considering minimum wage is $7.25/hr, that's not just a crappy job, that's in violation of Federal law.

Or, more likely, it wasn't a job.

Re:So the big question is: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723703)

We all know that nobody on /. reads TFA. But it is an interesting new trend that some don't even read the fscking summary anymore.

Slow news day (3, Insightful)

bzzfzz (1542813) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723329)

Somebody explain to me how this is different from someone selling Avon, or selling at the local farmers' market, or moonlighting as a musician at the local dive bar, or any other similar wellspring of unemployment stupidity?

Re:Slow news day (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723399)

Well, here we see how unemployment benefits really help society and the economy by encouraging people to go out and do something productive instead of just sitting around collecting unemployment!

Or, not....

Re:Slow news day (3, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723441)

So you're saying that you should be denied unemployment for fixing a friend's or family member's PCs on the side? Any hobby that happens to break even or make a small net profit? How about charity work? After all you *could* be getting paid for it, right?

Re:Slow news day (1, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723871)

Yes, you should be denied some unemployment for fixing a friends PC on the side. Remember, its your obligation to report taxable income. however, having it completely remove all of your unemployment is silly, this lady the article is about, was being honest, and it backfired on her. But yes, you should certainly claim that income. If you start doing more and more repair work, at what point do you think that you should start reporting the income?

Hell man, the IRS has regulations in place to pay taxes on the value of things you have stolen, since that is income to you!

Well, all are illegal... (1, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723449)

Bottom line is, unemployment is to fill in while you don't have a job. If you get money selling Avon, the farmer's market, or work as a musician, then you sorta have a job, don't you?

Re:Well, all are illegal... (3, Interesting)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723905)

Not really. While those are all sources of income, very few people would consider them for a primary occupation, and most people earning income from such ventures are still searching for a new career. Unemployment benefits should not punish those who put the effort in to maintain their livelihood simply because the government is too lazy to make a distinction between supplementary income and an actual job.

Re:Slow news day (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723499)

Somebody explain to me how this is different from someone selling Avon, or selling at the local farmers' market, or moonlighting as a musician at the local dive bar, or any other similar wellspring of unemployment stupidity?

Fortunately, there is longstanding tax precedent on what constitutes a business and what constitutes a hobby. There are a number of tests to make this determination.

Normally it's the other way around, in that the taxpayer is claiming that they are running a legitimate business, and wants to write off lots of business expenses, and the IRS claims that this isn't a real business, and disallows the deductions.

Just apply the existing rules. No story here, except that it looks like the existing rules were misapplied.

Is it really? (5, Insightful)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723341)

"It's really stunning how various labor departments are simply ill-equipped to handle a modern labor force."

Hmmm let's see, underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends. I would not call that revelation, "Stunning."

Re:Is it really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723691)

Easy solution, they just need more funding.

Re:Is it really? (1)

log1385 (1199377) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723805)

<quote>Hmmm let's see, underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends. I would not call that revelation, "Stunning."</quote>

The problem is not that the government is underfunded. No matter how much money it has, the government will never be able to keep up with technology. Microsoft has been throwing money at security improvement for years, and still MS apps and OS's are susceptible to the latest attacks. Money is not the problem or the solution. The problem is that the government acts as if people are robots and will only behave in certain ways.

Re:Is it really? (1, Insightful)

mayko (1630637) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723897)

Hmmm... let's see... you used "underfunded" and "government" in the same sentence.

We should know by now that our government is almost always ill-equipped to perform their job, throwing money at it hasn't done a thing to fix it, except create a monstrous debt.

State beauracrats are usually idiots.. (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723357)

I once got threatening letters from the state of Iowa claiming I didn't pay my taxes.

They didn't stop until I sent them a copy of my check that they had cashed.

Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots.. (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723583)

The whole tax system is a mess that few understand even professionals. Last year H&R Block prepared my taxes as they've done since circa 1990, and the woman kept insisting I don't owe Oklahoma any taxes because I live in Virgina. I said "Yes but I *worked* in Oklahoma and you pay where you worked, just like I did last year when I worked in California, or the prior year when I worked in Florida." She said I was wrong and those previous years need to be fixed. I said I was right. She said I was wrong and then got her manager to back her up, which made me think maybe I was wrong after all.

Long story made short - They fucked up. Oklahoma fined me, Virgina happily swallowed the ~$6,000 in extra taxmoney, then I filed amended forms (or actually H&R did) saying I owed OK not VA. I paid Oklahoma the taxes I owed, and Virgina refused to recognize the amended forms, and they did eventually return the money, minus a fine.

H&R Block cost me $600 in their mistakes.

I will eventually get my revenge.

Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots.. (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723831)

H&R Block employs housewives and other part-time workers to fill out tax forms. They go through a brief training period, something like 4 weeks at their own expense. They are then "qualified" to work in an H&R Block office preparing tax returns.

If using H&R Block has only cost you $600, you are lucky indeed unless your income is less than maybe $30,000. Anything more than that, especially with anything that is even remotely complicated - like multiple states, rental property, etc. you are playing with fire trusting H&R Block.

A real tax preparer would be paying the $600 in fines if they screwed up. A real tax preparer wouldn't have made the mistake in the first place. It does not require a CPA to fill out tax forms as CPA is something entirely different. You need someone that is good at tax preparation. Often these people are also a CPA but being a CPA doesn't mean they know anything about taxes.

Every year you are required to pay tribute to the government and doing it improperly can result in jail time. Do you really want to trust that to some part-time worker that managed to pay the fee to take the H&R Block class?

Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723859)

H&R Block hires absolutely anyone to preparer taxes. No requirements of prior experience, college degrees, English speaking skills. Heck, they don't even require a highschool diploma. At the same time they pay their employees low wages. If you combine the mandatory "tax class" (teaches them how to point & click in the H&R software) with the rest of their work they're actually paid below minimum wage (because the tax class isn't paid.) Hourly rate here is $9/hour. They can make more -- by commission, but due to the way their commission system is setup first years cannot earn a commission (used to be due to it heavily being based on "returning clients" while a 1st year couldn't have a returning client, though I think they actually removed the commissions from first years all together now.) The sad thing is H&R is not unique. All of the national chains are just as bad, and many of the non-chain stores are even worse. The reality is choosing to use turbotax will produce a more correct return 90% of the time. The other alternative is to pay the big bucks to have a CPA do the return, since they have to meet requirements and pass tests to become a CPA.

Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots.. (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723881)

I was under the impression that H&R Block simply hired trained monkeys that input your information into their software, rather than actual trained tax accountants.

Offtopic, but have you found anyone reliable? I've always preferred to do my own taxes, but this year my hand will likely be forced, due to marrying a K-1 Visa holder, plus some other fun issues.

Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots.. (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723889)

they did eventually return the money, minus a fine.

YOU HAVE PAID TOO MUCH MONEY.
YOU ARE NOW ASSESSED A $500 FINE.

Alternatively:

Pay too much money?
That's a paddlin'.

Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots.. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723903)

That's alright, in college I once got an "overpayment" refund from Virginia for $60 and change (on a $200-240 tax bill, as I remember). As a college student I foolishly cashed the check and spent the money. Four years later, I got a letter stating I underpaid my taxes by that $60, and I then owed them that money plus penalties and interest (close to $100). I didn't keep the letter or a copy of the check, so I was stuck paying. I count it as a $40 life lesson in proper record keeping. :-)

Horay government (0, Troll)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723381)

Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?

Re:Horay government (0, Flamebait)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723605)

Yeah, people who don't have insurance right now because they cannot afford it, they literally can't wait.

Re:Horay government (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723629)

Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?They already do -- ever heard of Medicare? In fact, some of the loudest objections to the "Public Option" are from people who believe it will reduce the quality of the Government sponsored healthcare they already receive! Fucking greedy hypocrites!

Re:Horay government (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723711)

"What do ya mean you can't give me a colon exam?"
"You're only 25 - come back when you're 40."
"But my dad died of colon cancer when he was only 24, and my brother got it when he was only in his thirties."
"Too bad. The government has to cut costs."

Later I develop colon cancer at age 26. (This is based on an actual story from the UK where the "NICE" organization routinely denies preventative medicine, and a citizen developed cancer at a young age which could have been prevented.)

BTW -

- when I asked my HMO for a colon exam age 30, the doctor said it's not necessary but gave it to me anyway - only cost me $20. Who says HMOs are not customer friendly?

Re:Horay government (0, Troll)

toadlife (301863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723713)

They already run it via regulation. Now, they just need to start paying for it like every other civilized nation in the world.

Re:Horay government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723823)

Who exactly do you think "they" are? I'm all for free healthcare. Problem is, the only thing anyone is talking about offering me is really freakin' expensive healthcare.

Gezz, why the heck did she tell them? (1)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723401)

I mean seriously? Is she THAT green from college? I did the same thing with a temp job for ONE DAY for just under $50 bucks and the state pulled my benifits and "held them" for a few months. All because my grandpa didn't get their mail:P Luckly I got another job in a week after but still.

To be frank, you don't tell the government ANYTHING unless you can fill out all those bubbles on a form. Unless the guys your working for has you fill a W-2, just "forget" about it. I mean, sure she is trying to pass the bar and dosn't want to put any tanit on her record. If that was the case, she shouldn't of signed up for addsence during her unemployment:P

She reported it (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723443)

It's her fault. Anybody with the tiniest bit of common sense realizes that trying to explain something like this to an un-fireable government bureaucrat is a losing battle. Why would she report the income? That's really just a dumb move on her part. That reminds me... my car inspection has expired. Maybe I should call the DMV and tell them...

Re:She reported it (1)

phlinn (819946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723543)

Because she's an honest person? It's really no great surprise to anyone who is opposed to government programs that said programs tend to reward bad behavior. That's a problem with the program, not a reason to abuse the system. It may actually be deliberate in some cases, since reducing the need for unemployment coverage also reduces the need for the bureaucrats running those programs.

Re:She reported it (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723609)

There's a difference between being honest, and willfully supplying superfluous information to a system that is not equipped to handle it.

pity... (2, Interesting)

foodnugget (663749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723453)

Pity the blogger removed the advertising, I reckon traffic is about to skyrocket for a few days...

Re:pity... (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723519)

Pity the blogger removed the advertising, I reckon traffic is about to skyrocket for a few days...

Increased traffic does not generally equate to increased Google Adsense revenue, in fact, it usually lowers it--a lot. If I expect a post to get a lot of traffic (from Slashdot or StumbleUpon, etc) I tell WhyDoWork to shut off ads to that particular post. No sense in serving many more ads that probably won't be clicked.

"Bureaucratic Nightmare" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723459)

You think this was bad!? Welcome to the future of your health care benefits if you hand it over to the government!

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
- Ronald Reagan

ABP FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723475)

She should have gotten the unemployment office to use Ad Block Plus. That way they wouldn't have seen her ads.

Looks like she should have kept adsense up (4, Insightful)

darjen (879890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723507)

now that her story is getting some wide coverage.

Everybody, let's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723511)

Everybody, let's all locate her blog and click on her ads out of the kindness of our hearts and to show that we support her.

An Unemployed... Lawyer? (1, Insightful)

blcamp (211756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723523)

Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.

I do wish her well, though...

lawyer si a fancy name for clerk (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723645)

The majority or lawyers do not come from big name law schools or on the partner-track in a big-name firm. They grind out contracts for businesses at very modest wages. thats when they can find a position.

Re:An Unemployed... Lawyer? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723671)

Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.

I do wish her well, though...

Not unusual - a lot of firms cut staff recently; one WSJ article with a prominent attorney said he was concerned that we a re producing far more lawyers than will ever get hired in the future, and he felt mny law students would never really recoup the cost of their education.

As for the red tape, knowing the law can be of very little use, especially when dealing with bureaucrats who have done the job for years and simply don't care what you think the law is; they've been doing it like this for years. Piss them off? Opps, your file is missing a key form. Please send it in again (so I can shred it). Threaten to sue? Go ahead, it'll be years before you get a verdict.

P>Not all are like that, but unfortunately the system can simply grind you down with no discernible impact on the system.

Re:An Unemployed... Lawyer? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723773)

Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.

Hey, that statement looks eminently libelous to me! Maybe more money will soon be headed her way!

Adding Insult to Injury (3, Funny)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723593)

And so, after removing the ads from her blog (they weren't really earning much money anyway) slashdot decided to mention it on the front page..

I bet she's thrilled.

Big Government (0, Troll)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723599)

This is simply the result of big government in our lives. It's the bureaucratic mess that occurs when government is given too much power over our lives; when we let them have that much power over our lives. They decided, for her, that the money she was collecting was sufficient to live on... not that the decision made sense, it doesn't, but bureaucratic decisions tend not to make sense.

It will be worse when the government passes universal healthcare coverage. Under the current proposals, they will tell you whether you're insurance is sufficient, and if not, will fine you for not having the proper coverage. Eventually, as government continues it's reckless spending, more and more people will be told their coverage is insufficient as they try to cover the increasing debt. Then, you will decide to get the best coverage available so you won't be fined, and that will result in being taxed for having a "luxury" plan.

Troll (1, Flamebait)

DogDude (805747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723769)

You know, if you tea baggers want to whine about big government, why aren't any of you smart enough to start with the biggest expenditure and the biggest waste: the military?

Re:Big Government (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723851)

The problem isn't that government run health care is inherently bad, the problem is that Republican and some Democrat senators are in the pockets of the heatlh care companies, so we'll never get a decent health care plan passed that has a public plan to keep the insurance companies honest.

We're the only first world country with third world health care. Hell, I think some third world countries take better care of their people than we do. Shameful.

Income is income.. (-1, Troll)

CrAlt (3208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723625)

Maybe she should spend less time "blogging" and more time looking for a job?

Re:Income is income.. (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723741)

Maybe you should spend less time "commenting" and more time doing your job.

And don't give me that "oh, i'm on break or posting from home" crap. That just means you're not dedicated enough!

Re:Income is income.. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723961)

What, you think it takes hours a day to make posts to a blog? I'm sure people can do a decent post a day in less than 15 minutes.

Besides, there's only so much time in a day you can spend looking for a job before going crazy, even posting to a blog might seem like a break.

...imagine them in charge of your HMO (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723729)

This is the sort of nonsense that drives the American distrust of beaurocrats.

The plans of well meaning liberal Senators will eventually have to be implemented
by civil servants with varying degrees of competence and empathy that have no
interest in being effective or efficient and infact will be rewarded by being as
inefficient as they can and growing their own personal fiefdom.

This is best captured by the "spend your budget this year or lose it next year" approach to money.

Nevada is suing me for back unemployment (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29723797)

I've been unemployed for about 2 years now. I live in backwater Reno, NV and had worked in the gaming industry. Two strikes against me, I know. I had been in Silicon Valley for many years, but wanted a cheaper/nicer place to live. Its nice here, but if you make more than $100,000/year, they think you're some overpaid wallstreet crook.

Anyways, during the course of my job hunt I formed an LLC so I could accept 1099 work rather than just FT W2. I add a line to my contact letter that says, "I am available for full-time W2 employment, as well as contract-based 1099 projects." That's it. That's the whole deal.

Once Nevada found out about this they claim I own and operate a company, and are SUING me for 1 year's back unemployment. Uh, I don't have $12,000 sitting around guys. That's because I'm UNEMPLOYED.

I'm guessing that the state is just broke, and looking for every excuse they can to deny any benefit they can.

I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too. Interesting.

self employed (1)

ico2 (817589) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723845)

If she'd registered as self employed, it would've worked out fine.

you'd think a lawyer would know that...

Also work with disability pay (4, Interesting)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29723913)

A similar thing happened to my Mom a while ago. She was injured on the job and taking L&I pay. With all her spare time I helped her set up a blog. Eventually she put Google ads on it and started raking in the big bucks (to the tune of about $3/month). After a few months of this, L&I got wind of it and claimed that this proved she was no longer injured and therefore entitled to no benefits.

She fought this decision and (eventually) won by pointing out that, even though her ads were 'making' money, she had never been paid since her ads never equaled $100 or more (as required by Google). If she had ever reached the $100 mark (even if it had taken years) she probably would have been out of luck.

But in her case, it all worked out well in the end. Her injury was due to and incident of workplace violence where her employer had been warned of the danger multiple times in the past (but did nothing to protect their people). She settled just a few days ago for $500K.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...