Bloomberg to release women from NDAs

[Roland99]

Link to tweet

Bloomberg LP has identified 3 NDAs signed over the past 30+ years with women to address complaints about comments they said I had made.

If any of them want to be released from their NDAs, they should contact the company and they'll be given a release. https://mikebloom.bg/2Va9EnR

[Squinch]

1. 3...2...1... before the goal posts move among some here.

[bluewater]

3. Mike has already moved the goalposts. lol Only THREE?

Why not release very women from NDA's that filled harassment and hostile workplace complaints?

He's not trying to claim their were only THREE now, is he?

[uponit7771]

4. +1, he really thinks we're as stupid as republicans

[Squinch]

9. Those are the only ones he was personally involved in. The only ones he can agree to void.

[Fresh_Start]

12. only three named Bloomberg himself

others were against the company

[bluewater]

19. Bloomberg IS the company!

It's a privately held company and Bloomberg is the majority shareholder and he called the shots there.

He should release everyone from the NDA's that filed a sexual harassment or hostile workplace claim.

It's THAT simple.

[backtoblue]

46. He's as much or more responsible for his employees behavior

Than any candidate does for their supporter's behavior.

Edit: Im cranky ...sorry everyone

[mdelaguna]

11. Can't win (over) opponents no matter what

... so true about goalposts

[Squinch]

17. It didn't even take three seconds!

[Polly Hennessey]

43. It never takes more than three before

the eruptions happen.

[Bradshaw3]

111. Weren't you the law expert saying it couldn't be done

[Squinch]

112. I was saying it couldn't be done unilaterally. Which it can't. And it can't be done except

in those cases where Bloomberg is a party to the NDA.

But you enjoy your moment.

[Bradshaw3]

114. You enjoy pretending to be a law expert

What your saying is the buck doesn't stop with Bloomberg. A bad look for someone who wants to be president. Of course he wouldn't want to be a Truman like President. Truman reined in corporations during WWII and was on the side of working people.

Oh, I'm still waiting to hear about your extensive legal background.

[Squinch]

117. Oh, my dear, it really doesn't require extensive legal expertise to know that a NDA can't

be voided by one party without the permission of the other party.

[Bradshaw3]

116. You enjoy pretending to be a legal expert

What your saying is the buck doesn't stop with Bloomberg. A bad look for someone who wants to be president. Of course he wouldn't want to be a Truman like President. Truman reined in corporations during WWII and was on the side of working people.

Oh, I'm still waiting to hear about your extensive legal background.

[BeckyDem]

125. How many NDA's you good with?

[bluewater]

2. Only THREE? What about the rest of them.

Sorry, Mike, cherry picking which NDA to release people from won't cut it.

This won't play well.

[George II]

8. Read his tweet again. He's not cherry picking. He's chosen all of the NDAs....

....that involve comments he has made.

He was trying to explain that the other night but Warren kept interrupting him and not allow him to answer.

[bluewater]

13. He OWNS the company!

It's a privately held company and he is the majority shareholder.

He needs to release everyone from the NDA's that have filed sexual harassment and hostile workplace claims.

It's THAT simple.

[Fresh_Start]

64. totally wrong...

NDAs can have more than two parties... John and Mary and the company.
Perhaps Mary and the company are okay with the disclosure but John is not...and John doesn't want to release the NDA. The NDA can't be released because it is protecting john. company can't force john to release NDA.

[still_one]

80. Thank you for the explaining this to some who have no idea what is involved

[jmg257]

38. I didn't see where he said "all" I saw where they "identified 3"

Seems different.

[George II]

54. There apparently are only three that are between him and another party.

[jmg257]

57. Wow that many (at least)? Sheesh. And a bunch with LP?

Ugh!!

[Squinch]

60. OK. Now think this through. He has sent this out in an open statement. If he is "cherrypicking,"

how are the cherrypicked 3 supposed to know who they are?

And if he is cherrypicking, what is to stop the non-cherrypicked ones from responding?

Or is there a magic wand involved here somewhere?

[jmg257]

66. Ha I guess we will find out! How to know which 3 indeed!

Guess they will get in touch with the lucky ones personally?

[Squinch]

69. This is a public statement. A press release. This IS him getting in touch with them.

[jmg257]

74. Sure it is...it is good of him to do Something after

Getting beat over the head. Gotta give him credit for some political savvy.

[Squinch]

83. LOL! Not good enough, then? See post 1.

[jmg257]

90. Oh no - I think it's a great move!

[blm]

126. Oh brother. Does Biden know you're seeing another candidate?

😁

[Gravitycollapse]

5. This is ominous as hell. I wouldn't blame those women for not taking the bait.

Yes, they're released from their NDAs but what is he going to do to them after they speak up?

[Squinch]

10. LOLOLOLOLO!!!! He is TERRIBLE for not releasing him. Now he's OMINOUS *FOR* releasing them.

This is getting hilarious.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. Yeah, the 12th richest man in the world just wants these women to be honest.

Which is why he previously swore them to secrecy.

[Squinch]

23. So, then, you DIDN'T want him to release them? You should probably make up your mind.

[Gravitycollapse]

25. I don't trust him to actually be honest or non-threatening about this. It's a trap or trick.

He should release all of the women from their NDAs, not just these cherry-picked few.

[Squinch]

31. He has picked ALL of the ones that involved him personally. Beyond that, he doesn't have a say.

And if you didn't think it was a good thing for him to release them, why were you cheering when someone asked for them?

[Gravitycollapse]

34. You seem oddly excited to hear about how Bloomberg is a gross perv.

[Squinch]

41. You seem upset to learn that he isn't worried about what the three women have to say.

Which means it probably wasn't particularly gross or pervy.

But please. Go on. You demanded the NDAs be removed. Now they're removed. And you are outraged and find it "ominous."

So where do the goalposts go now?

[Gravitycollapse]

44. I guess we wait to hear why Bloomberg swore them to secrecy.

I’m sure it was just a little misunderstanding.

[TwilightZone]

65. It's pretty standard with out-of-court settlements.

Both parties agree as part of the settlement not to discuss the terms of the settlement, etc., publicly.

Happens all the time, which is why NDAs end up in the news quite often.

[jmg257]

48. Are you now saying there are (at least) 3 NDA involving

Him personally??

This AM it was 0.

Squinch
16. And the wide publication of documents and facts in that case suggest that there was no NDA.

What changed?!?

Ha at this rate, there might be like 64 by tomorrow.

[Squinch]

67. Ah! There's where the goalposts are moving to! I quoted his spokesperson's answer

on amanpour:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=551334

And it contained an error. Therefore BLOOMBERG MUST BE JACK THE RIPPER!!!!1!!!

[jmg257]

71. Oh totally different arguments. I thought only 1, now 3 at least.

Who Knows how many there really are!

[Bradshaw3]

113. So, the buck doesn't stop with Blomberg

Gives us a glimpse into his executive powers.

[Moderateguy]

40. And what about Sanders previously promising to release his full health records?

Or is Bloomberg the only one who’s responsible for his previous positions?

[George II]

45. Isn't it funny how that works? For the life of my I don't know what's "ominous" about this.

[Squinch]

93. I like the ones saying he's cherrypicking and there are tons more than 3. So he puts out a press

release. So how are the cherrypicked three supposed to know who they are? And how is he supposed to be keeping the non-cherrypicked ones from responding?

[Polly Hennessey]

56. Agree. They are the quintessential

damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If I were Bloomberg I would just proceed because you cannot win against the do or the don’t crowd.

[melman]

6. Didn't he say he couldn't do that even if he wanted to?

Yes. Yes he did.

@ 1:39

Link to tweet

[Squinch]

14. And he can't. Not without permission from the other party. Which is what he is asking

for so he can release them.

[melman]

30. Perhaps you could point out where he mentions getting permission?

But probably not because he doesn't.


He just said it can't be done in an attempt to shut down the topic. Now he's been forced to admit he can release them.


Thanks for playing!

[Squinch]

33. "If any of them want to be released, please contact the company and they will be released."

Bloomberg, the first party, is saying he agrees to release them, and if the three women (the second parties) agree, they should let him know and they will void the NDA.

Both parties must agree.

But this is fascinating. Go on. I'm dying to see where you move the goalposts to next.

[George II]

52. Did you read his tweet in the OP? THAT is where he mentions it.

Providing facts isn't "playing".

[George II]

21. He didn't lie. He said they couldn't lift the NDA unilaterally. Both parties must agree to do so.

That's how NDAs work - they're non-disclosure agreements between two parties. Neither can unilaterally lift them, but parties must agree to lift them.

He has now said that he's willing to do so. But without the other party's consent he still can't do so.

[denem]

68. As a matter of law,

you can relinquish your rights under a contract and estop yourself from enforcing them without voiding or discharging the contract itself.

[bluewater]

77. Bazinga!

[denem]

84. I'm sure Elizabeth will be only too happy to school Bloomberg on contract law

at the next debate. She can take along her release form too, and a fountain pen.

[TwilightZone]

95. I would rather she not.

I'm not so sure that that would be a wise strategy.

As for contracts, if the contract states that it only becomes void if both parties agree to make it void, then one person can't unilaterally make it void. That would seem to be self-evident.

Without more information about the language and terms, everyone is just making guesses based on, well, not much.

[Squinch]

99. She is in a position of strength right now. The follow up offer of the form

was gimmicky and she had to have known it, but most people didn't notice that.

If she continues with this, she'll lose all the ground it gave her.

[denem]

102. I said that in jest - it would be cheap stunt.

As a matter of law, you can unilaterally relinquish your rights under contract. The contract remains, but you estop yourself from enforcing its terms.

What that would mean is that those speaking out would not have to return any monies paid to them under the terms of the NDA.

[George II]

101. A Non-Disclosure Agreement isn't a typical contract. As a matter of fact, I've been involved....

...in two with a former employer (now almost 30 years ago)

The wording of the agreements is such that if I were to reveal anything specific in the agreement (this isn't specific, but I'm sure the statute of limitations has expired anyway) then whatever benefit I gained through the negotiated agreement I would have to forfeit and pay a penalty.

ONLY if the two parties agree to waive the NDA can the details be revealed.

That's not a typical contract.

[denem]

103. As a matter of contract law, you are correct.

As a matter of equity, you can estop yourself from further benefitting from, or otherwise enforcing the terms of a contract. You are going outside the four corners of the contract, to relinquish your rights at general law.

Why is this significant? Because it means the women would not have to return any monies paid to them under the terms of the NDA.

[George II]

115. Apparently Bloomberg has done that, and now has left the final decision up to the other parties....

....in those agreements.

As he tried to explain the other night before he was rudely interrupted a few times, in some cases the other parties might not want their names revealed. I can understand and envision situations where that might be true.

For example, with regard to one of the agreements I entered into, it turned out that the attorney for the company involved coincidentally was the attorney for the new company I was working for (I was shocked, the two companies were about 40 miles away from each other and in different businesses - a bizarre coincidence!).

Even though I was the aggrieved party, I wouldn't want my new employer to know about it and think that I was a trouble maker.

[denem]

120. Here's a plausible scenario.

A woman is sexually harassed. She complains to her employer, Bloomberg LP. No action is taken. The harassment continues and escalates. After further inaction she resigns and takes legal advice. The result is settlement which provides she cannot publicly name her harasser(s), take criminal or civil action against them, challenge the terms of her employment NDA in court, nor hold Bloomberg LP liable for their failure to provide a safe workplace.

[George II]

123. That's about how those things go. Except for those between someone and Bloomberg himself....

....it would be messy and almost impossible to reveal the details, particularly if other employee(s) were named. They would have to agree to release them, too. That's probably not going to happen.

[denem]

124. I worked in finance in the '80s.

On my first day, a deputy head of department said to me, in front of a mixed group, 'God I'd like to grab those tits', as a PA walked by. The Wolf of Wall Street was only an exaggeration.

[krissey]

7. So once again Warren got something done. How many more demands she go after someone to prove her

worth?

[Gravitycollapse]

20. Warren is seriously killing it. I just hope this gives her a performance bump.

[krissey]

26. I hope it gives her the nomination. Warren has shown repeatedly how she has earned the role.

Not just asking people to imagine a possibility of hope from Sanders socialism to Bidens working with the right.

[ibegurpard]

15. Thought there were a lot more than 3

[George II]

27. He was trying to say roughly how many there were the other night, but Warren kept interrupting him..

...with "how many, how many?"

But he did indicate that there are very few.

[bluewater]

29. There are. Bloomberg is trying to cherry pick which to release because there are SO many.

He claims only 3 named him personally. The rest named his company.

But his company is privately held and he is the majority shareholder.

Bloomberg IS the company.

He should release all the people from all the NDA's that filed due to sexual harassment and hostile workplace claims.

He's trying to avoid a flood of those.

[Moderateguy]

47. Yes but it did not involve Bloomberg directly

The other men involved are part of the NDA as well and he or the company can’t release the NDA without their permission

[bluewater]

55. Bloomberg IS his company and he called the shots at it.

Bloomberg's company is privately held and he is the majority shareholder. Plus he called the shots there, setting the tone in the workplace.

All the people that filed sexual harassment and hostile workplace claims against HIS COMPANNY, should be released from those NDA's.

Those complaints claimed the COMPANY turned a blind eye to that harassment. And Bloomberg IS his company in every conceivable way that counts.

Everyone should be released from those NDA's.

It's THAT simple.

[Moderateguy]

58. It involves a third party

The ones working at Bloomberg that were accused. The company LEGALLY needs their permission

[bluewater]

76. The NDA's are between the complainants and the company.

And Bloomberg IS the company.

"Bloomberg L.P. has remained a private company since its founding; the majority of which is owned by billionare Michael Bloomberg."

[Moderateguy]

79. Do some research

The NDA’s involve ALL parties involved in the matter— so the accused are a part of it and it will be a violation of their civil rights to release without their permission.

[rzemanfl]

91. I would call it breach of contract, not civil rights. n/t

[Moderateguy]

92. NY law it would be both

Since supposedly it would cause harm to to accused’s reputation

[rzemanfl]

94. Isn't truth a defense? RU a lawyer. n/t

[Moderateguy]

96. No but I've signed an NDA with a former company in NYC

After filing a racial harassment complaint

[rzemanfl]

98. Sorry that happened to you. n/t

[bluewater]

100. NDA's are between the company and the complainant.

The complaint is made against THE COMPANY. The NDA agreement is between the COMPANY and the complainant.

Your assertion that the ACCUSED is always a part of NDA's is absurd.

Consider the case of NBC and woman who made complaints about Matt Lauer sexually harassing them:

NBC will now let former employees talk about sexual harassment. Critics say that’s not enough.

NBC Universal said Friday that it will release former employees from a legal agreement to stay silent about their experiences working for the company.

NBC executives said it was standard practice for employees to sign nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, upon leaving, but it’s a practice that has come under fire in recent years for its role in silencing victims of sexual harassment.
“Any former NBC News employee who believes they cannot disclose their experience with sexual harassment as a result of a confidentiality or non-disparagement provision in their separation agreement should contact NBCUniversal and we will release them from that perceived obligation,” a spokesperson wrote in a statement that aired on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show.

NBC did NOT need Matt Lauer's permission to release those women from those NDA's.


You are making the positive claim that these NDA's in the Bloomberg case involve a third party but have presented ZERO evidence that this was actually the case.

So, please provide a link proving this. I will wait here.

[Fresh_Start]

131. the harrassment claim requires specific acts to have occurred

you can't win a claim that says 'people were eye'ing me funny'.

you have to substantiate:
my coworker joe did XYZ
my supervisor said wqr
the owner held out a promotion for sex

by virtue of the claim having to be specific in nature...other people are named.

[bluewater]

135. But not necessarily a party in any NDA signed to settle a lawsuit.

The lawsuit is between the complainant and the company.

NBC did not need Matt Lauer's permission to release those women from their NDA's.

Again, do you have any links showing these Bloomberg NDA's have any third parties to the NDA?

I guess not.

[TwilightZone]

73. Bloomberg has 20,000 employees.

Your assertion that he's the company so he should be able to unilaterally decide the legal status of NDAs involving any of those 20,000 people (but not him personally) is laughable.

[bluewater]

138. The women sued the COMPANY, there was no 3rd party involved in any NDA's to settle those lawsuits.

They did not sue the individuals that sexually harassed them, except those that sued Bloomberg himself, they sued the COMPANY for not doing the right thing in preventing or punishing that harassment.

No third party has standing in those lawsuits. Any NDA's made in settling those lawsuits are between those individual women and the COMPANY. No one else.

That's pretty simple to understand, right?

The only question is how many of those NDA's exist in addition to the three involving Bloomberg himself.
That is why Warren kept asking how MANY sexual harassment NDA's there were during the debate.

[DURHAM D]

18. Did he use the form that Warren prepared for him?

Once again she got shit done.

[krissey]

22. Once again she got shit done.

Yes, she did.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. This.

[left-of-center2012]

24. He's attacked for not releasing them, and now ...

He's attacked for not releasing them,
and now he's attacked for releasing them.

[bluewater]

32. He's attacked for releasing only a small fraction of them...

It make sense to attack him for that.

It also makes sense to insist that he release people from ALL the NDA's that filed sexual harassment and hostile workplace claims.

[Squinch]

35. And all the legal eagles are spewing shit about corporate structure, as if they know how

it works.

This is really funny!

[bluewater]

37. Warren seems to know.

But then she only TAUGHT contract law at Harvard.

But we should ignore that, right?

[TwilightZone]

75. My favorite is the claim that Bloomberg can make legal decisions for 20,000 people.

Unilaterally and without their permission or involvement.

[Squinch]

85. But... but... but HE'S THE MAJOR STOCKHOLDER!!1!!

[TwilightZone]

89. There are times when I wonder if people are just playing dumb.

This is one of those times.

The assertion is just completely nonsensical. Take even 10 seconds to think about it and it breaks down.

[bluewater]

104. Bloomberg was chairman and CEO for 20 years! And the MAJORITY Shareholder too. lol

Bloomberg was chairman and CEO for 20 years!

He began his career at the securities brokerage Salomon Brothers, before forming his own company in 1981, Bloomberg L.P., a financial services, software, and mass media company that is known for its Bloomberg Terminal, a computer software system providing financial data widely used in the financial industry. He spent the next twenty years as its chairman and CEO

The culture of the company has been compared to a fraternity, with employees bragging in the company's office about their sexual exploits.[29] The company was sued four times by female employees for sexual harassment, including one incident in which a victim claimed to have been raped.[30][31] To celebrate Bloomberg's 48th birthday, colleagues published a pamphlet entitled Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg. Among various sayings that were attributed to him, several have subsequently been criticized as sexist or misogynistic.[32][33][29]

[TwilightZone]

105. You can't possibly be serious.

Spend 10 seconds thinking about your silly assertion and realize that it's ridiculous. He cannot make unilateral legal decisions for 20,000 people. End of story.

Frankly, I think at this point that you're simply playing dumb.

[bluewater]

107. NBC COULD. Why not Bloomberg?

Last edited Fri Feb 21, 2020, 09:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Consider the case of NBC and woman who made complaints about Matt Lauer sexually harassing them:

NBC will now let former employees talk about sexual harassment. Critics say that’s not enough.

NBC Universal said Friday that it will release former employees from a legal agreement to stay silent about their experiences working for the company.

NBC executives said it was standard practice for employees to sign nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, upon leaving, but it’s a practice that has come under fire in recent years for its role in silencing victims of sexual harassment.
“Any former NBC News employee who believes they cannot disclose their experience with sexual harassment as a result of a confidentiality or non-disparagement provision in their separation agreement should contact NBCUniversal and we will release them from that perceived obligation,” a spokesperson wrote in a statement that aired on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show.

NBC did NOT need Matt Lauer's permission to release those women from those NDA's.

Women sued Bloomberg's COMPANY for having a culture that allowed and did not punish sexual harassment. They did not sue a third party.
Any NDA's made to settle those lawsuits involve only the individual women and the COMPANY.

[localroger]

133. Of course he can. That is exactly what 'majority shareholder' means. /nt

[bluewater]

139. Those NDA's were made to settle lawsuits where women sued the COMPANY, not a 3rd party.

Women sued Bloomberg's COMPANY for having a culture that allowed and did not punish sexual harassment. They did not sue a third party.

Any NDA's made to settle those lawsuits involve only the individual women and the COMPANY.

So, of course Bloomberg as the majority shareholder in a privately held company has the final authority to release those women from such NDA's.

[localroger]

140. And as the majority shareholder, he IS THE COMPANY

This is why people insist on 51% ownerhsip. It's a thing. The company isn't some separate entity, he has made sure it is totally under his control. There is no board, there is no voting process, there is no other check on his power. He owns and controls the company. He can make any decision he wants about what the company will do and he doesn't need anybody else to second him. He's set it up that way as many other business owners have. And that's great when you want to make sure the company does what you want it to do, and less so when you or the company have done something bad and the liability comes flying back at you.

[emmaverybo]

36. Not helpful Just gave Bloomberg a chance to play the good guy as usual, claim it only three wanted

release, and he probably chose the three. Stunts do not work.

[bluewater]

39. Not a good look for Bloomberg.

He will be roasted alive for not releasing all the people who filed sexual harassment claims from those NDA's.

Bloomberg essentially IS his company. It's privately held, he's the majority shareholder and he called the shots.

[Squinch]

50. You're not real well versed in corporate structure, are you?

[bluewater]

61. Deflections noted. Bloomberg was chairman and CEO for 20 years!

He began his career at the securities brokerage Salomon Brothers, before forming his own company in 1981, Bloomberg L.P., a financial services, software, and mass media company that is known for its Bloomberg Terminal, a computer software system providing financial data widely used in the financial industry. He spent the next twenty years as its chairman and CEO

The culture of the company has been compared to a fraternity, with employees bragging in the company's office about their sexual exploits.[29] The company was sued four times by female employees for sexual harassment, including one incident in which a victim claimed to have been raped.[30][31] To celebrate Bloomberg's 48th birthday, colleagues published a pamphlet entitled Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg. Among various sayings that were attributed to him, several have subsequently been criticized as sexist or misogynistic.[32][33][29]

[Squinch]

81. Yes. It is always terrible when women are subject to harassment and a sexist workplace.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html
Accounts like Ms. Di Lauro’s — describing episodes of sexual harassment and demeaning treatment as well as pay disparity in Mr. Sanders’s 2016 campaign — have circulated in recent weeks in emails, online comments and private discussions among former supporters. Now, as the Vermont senator tries to build support for a second run at the White House, his perceived failure to address this issue has damaged his progressive bona fides, delegates and nearly a dozen former state and national staff members said in interviews over the last month.

To me it seems worse when it happened in 2016 after we knew better, rather than in the 90s when it was commonplace. But it should never have been acceptable.

[bluewater]

106. Deflection noted. But, Bloomberg was still chairman and CEO for 20 years!

Bloomberg was chairman and CEO for 20 years!

And he OWNED the company!

Bloomberg is the MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER in the privately held company, Bloomberg LP.

[Squinch]

108. Was he the MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER!!!111!!!? I wouldn't have known. You haven't mentioned it before.

Oh wait. I can see you have....

You seem to think it means something that it doesn't mean.

But, carry on!

[bluewater]

110. And he was CHAIRMAN AND CEO FOR TWENTY YEARS TOO!!!! lol

So, being the MAJORITY share holder in a privately held company made him the principal OWNER.

Then he was the CHAIRMAN and CEO for TWENTY YEARS, meaning he was in CHARGE of running the company for that period and was not a passive investor.

So, damn straight, the BUCK STOPS WITH BLOOMBERG.

[ChubbyStar]

49. Warren said it in the debate "he likes SOME women"

Those three appear to be women he likes.

[Squinch]

97. It's a press release. If he "chose the three" how does he stop any of the unchosen NDA holders from

responding?

It's a public statement.

[keithbvadu2]

42. Is there any reason why the women would not want the NDA cancelled?

Is there any reason why the women would not want the NDA cancelled?

[ChubbyStar]

51. Money is probably involved. Just my guess......

[madville]

109. They don't want national media attention?

Most people don't want the publicity and to have their lives turned inside out, that would be a valid reason.

[jmg257]

132. Yes - "six figures" worth of reasons.

[GanjaGrower]

53. Your move Warren

That backfired on her lol

[krissey]

63. No it did not. Warren got it done while the other four candidates do nothing.

Bloomberg is not my enemy and I think it says something about Bloomberg that he did this, makes him more believable, a better person and we will continue to watch the development. I say yea Warren that you got Bloomberg to move on this. Bloomberg is still number five on my list, but as a woman, I do appreciate what Warren did with her woman voice. You can't dismiss that, minimize ar create negative out of Warren's accomplishment.

[denem]

72. "Warren got it done"

[Hoyt]

87. It is interesting, that's for sure.

[David__77]

59. I wonder if it that involves any financial implication.

Specifically, I wonder if the release would potentially create a financial liability/impact for the party wanting to be released.

[The Mouth]

70. We should entierly get rid of NDAs

Period. All of them.

[TwilightZone]

82. No reason to ban them all.

In some instances, they're pretty much a requirement of doing business. For example, a contractor might sign an NDA agreeing to keep client or patient information confidential. Many also involve trade secrets, proprietary information, etc.

[still_one]

88. Some folks obviously don't understand what NDAs purpose is

[Blue_true]

137. Exactly.

They are valuable for a lot of legitimate business activity.

What need to be gotten rid of are NDAs that silence victims of harassment or racism.

[still_one]

86. Really? You have No problem taking trade secrets from one company and giving them to a

competitor?

[rzemanfl]

78. The stupid part of this is he should have known the number on the debate stage. n/t

[Squinch]

118. He really should have. What? He forgot?

[rzemanfl]

119. He should have been prepared. n/t

[Squinch]

121. Yes. I was very disappointed.

[bluewater]

122. No one knows exactly how many sexual harassment NDA's there are. But more than 3 seems likely.

The three agreements he’s willing to open up relate specifically to comments he’s alleged to have made. His company reportedly faced nearly 40 lawsuits involving 65 plaintiffs between 1996 and 2016, though it's unclear how many relate to sexual harassment or discrimination.

Why doesn't Bloomberg tell us the number of sexual harassment lawsuits have been filed and settled against his company?

Bloomberg is not only the majority shareholder in his privately held company, making him the principal owner, but he was the chairman and CEO for 20 years also. He wasn't just a passive investor.

He began his career at the securities brokerage Salomon Brothers, before forming his own company in 1981, Bloomberg L.P., a financial services, software, and mass media company that is known for its Bloomberg Terminal, a computer software system providing financial data widely used in the financial industry. He spent the next twenty years as its chairman and CEO

The culture of the company has been compared to a fraternity, with employees bragging in the company's office about their sexual exploits.[29] The company was sued four times by female employees for sexual harassment, including one incident in which a victim claimed to have been raped.[30][31] To celebrate Bloomberg's 48th birthday, colleagues published a pamphlet entitled Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg. Among various sayings that were attributed to him, several have subsequently been criticized as sexist or misogynistic.[32][33][29]

[Jarqui]

127. The tweets below save me some typing

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[BeckyDem]

128. Yea, he is totally awesome. Its all behind him now.

One Former Employee Says She Felt Pressured to Sign an NDA & Another Alleges That Bloomberg Suggested She ‘Kill’ Her Child

https://heavy.com/news/2020/02/michael-mike-bloomberg-ndas-nda/

[pamdb]

129. NDA's

You can bet they are ones that don't involve Bloomberg, going to be some other guy in the company.

[jmg257]

130. Now I KNOW this is all for show...Tim Obrien once again on CNN - telling us all we need to know

about the 3 NDAs.

What horseshit.

I guess you really can fool some of the people some of the time.

[localroger]

134. The bad handling of this is breathtaking

I'm sure that even before the debate was over Bloomie's expensive consultants were preparing a course of action and advice as to how bad Warren had damaged him on this topic. The thing is, had he said during the debate something like "you have a point, I'll take steps to do what I can in that direction tomorrow morning," this would look about as good as possible. But he stood there imperiously and stated that he didn't have to do that. OK, it got him booed, but now we know where he stood.

Except that he now does this. Which makes him look like not just a misogynistic asshole, but a WEAK misogynistic asshole. He is capitulating, and even worse he is doing it selectively and incompletely, as everyone will assume from the "only three" thing. IMO he would have been better off standing his ground and saying something like "look, the lawyers draw these things up and this is the way it works." He'd have to contend with Warren giving him the boilerplate, but he could probably have his own lawyers come up with some vaguely plausible reason her form isn't practical. In fact, I suspect this move is an attempt to get ahead of that happening, but it's just a horribly bad look.

The takeaway from the debate is that the Bloomberg we've been seeing in all those ads is a slick PR creation. When we meet the real Bloomie, he's awkward, imperious, dismissive, reactive, and unprepared. I hope he still uses his status as a candidate to keep taking out brilliant ads attacking Trump, but I also hope this cures him of the notion that he should actually try to win the election.

[Baclava]

141. Liz made him crack in one day!? She GETS THINGS DONE! Great work