If you’re a blogger who draws unemployment from the State of New York, beware. An unemployed lawyer, named Karin (Last name withheld) told Forbes that New York State has withheld her unemployment benefits after declaring that her blog constituted self-employment.
The New York Department of Labor initially told her that her Google AdSense revenue was residual, and that it would not affect her unemployment. However, the NYDOL later launched an investigation into her “business” to determine if she is still eligible for benefits, and decided to withhold her checks in the meantime. She has since yanked AdSense from her site in an effort to regain them.
Forbes called the NYDOL several times, but never received a coherent reply, and was told that her case was “uncharted territory.”
“It’s frustrating that nobody seems to have a straightforward answer,” Karin told Forbes. “It’s even more frustrating that trying to work and generate additional income, while being straightforward and honest about that income, is treated with suspicion and punished.”
Karin received her law degree in 2008 from the University of Virginia. She soon accepted a position at a New York City law firm, but was laid off six months later. She moved to St. Louis, Mo. for cheaper rent, meanwhile retaining her New York benefits, which is allowed under law.
In the meantime, Karin began searching for jobs and preparing for the Missouri bar exam. Along the way, she began her blog and decided to try and make a little money from it.
Other than unemployment, Karin only had her blog, STL Meal Deals, to support her, a blog that has earned her a measly $238.75 since April.
This whole situation is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. First, unemployment isn’t welfare, it’s a form of public insurance that employees pay into. I think some online commenters are unaware of that fact.
Second, Forbes describes New York’s regulations thusly:
According to state regulations, anyone receiving unemployment benefits who works one day and earns less than $405 will have his check for the week reduced by 25%. Someone who earns more than $405 in a single week becomes ineligible for any payments for that week.
So a reduction in payment makes some sense. But having all her rightful benefits taken away for $238.75, earned over the span of months? Absolutely absurd. Maybe she should blog about it?