A copy of one of the sexual harassment/discrimination lawsuits against Bloomberg.

[pnwmom]

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8fa4a832-ee75-4da4-8749-ca8e9392d77f&fbclid=IwAR3uFbuP2zFv-cui4y8SMmJijNg1LFCp8RQo2759buDJ1IyN8qfZKUEGg4U

[Garrett78]

1. Bloomberg and his executives are such disgusting people.

[Farmer-Rick]

52. I know. It sounds like the stuff Trump did

Grabbing women, leaving wind up penises and sex toys on their desks. Calling them all sorts of sexual names. Propositioning women in exchange for promotions. Insulting and belittling women at every turn.

The whole Bloomberg organization sounds like a house of prostitution only the women don't know they are sex workers.

It is wholly disgusting.

[myohmy2]

119. +1

...WOW...

[mysteryowl]

2. Here is the drip drip drip...

that Elizabeth Warren spoke of during the debate. We don't need this from one of our "candidates"!!!

Pervasive Sexual Harassment, Discrimination on the Basis of National Origin and Discriminatory Retaliation at Bloomberg, L,P.

[dotism]

13. Precisely.

My mother is thinking of putting her support behind Bloomberg. By showing her a copy of the above complaint along with a link to Warren's prescience regarding this sort of thing during the last debate (my mother doesn't watch the debates), I am hoping I can coax her into considering another candidate.

[mysteryowl]

22. Welcome to DU!

I approve of your choice of candidate!

[dotism]

23. Yay!

Thank you so much for the warm welcome It means a lot to me.

[raging moderate]

3. There is something very fishy about Bloomberg's current actions.

His responses during that debate were obviously very consistent with solidly Republican opinions and attitudes. Why is he trying to run as a Democrat, when he thinks like a Republican? I thought the other candidates should have called him when he pretended not to know that many European companies have some of their manual laborers sitting on their boards. Why did he pretend that it was just another Communist pipedream from Bernie Sanders? These European executives understand that that people actually working on the production line are likely to see and know things that will not be obvious to people who work in the offices. Also, it was pretty fishy when he didn't think we should change the tax code to remedy the current income disparity because he worked damned hard (as though anybody who is not a billionaire just didn't work as hard as he did). He is almost like an imitation Joe Biden, who would be a much better President! Actually, so would any of the other real Democrats running for President!

[Butterflylady]

18. Once again lets go over this.

Bloomberg was a Democrat most of his life. He ran as as a Republican only to run for mayor and that wasn't even his idea to begin with. He was approached by the Republican party of New York to run. After being mayor he changed his affiliation to independent. And now he's changed to democrat to run for president. Same as Bernie changing from independent to democrat to run for president.

[Butterflylady]

19. By the way I don't care for Bloomberg.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. Still doesn't explain why he supported Bush in 04 and McCain in 08.

He only recently started supporting Democrats.

[Farmer-Rick]

51. Her supported McCain and Palin over Obama and Biden.....that is not a Democrat.

[liskddksil]

62. And along the way endorsed Republicans up and down the ballot

putting Moscow Mitch in charge, costing us multiple Supreme Court seats, and any chance of the gun reform he pretends to be concerned about.

[thesquanderer]

114. re: "He ran as as a Republican only to run for mayor"

But he also had many policies that were Republican-friendly. I know, he had Dem-friendly positions too, like on guns and abortion, among others. It is New York City, after all, so to be fair, he was pretty liberal for a Republican. But it wasn't a mere party affiliation of convenience, he also had plenty of positions that were consistent with the Republican party line.

The administration favored the bankers and real estate developers. He had little regard for civil rights, whether it was stop-and-frisk or Occupy Wall Street or surveillance of muslims. He supported Bush over Kerry, and supported the Iraq war even years into it when most Dems had already realized they'd been had (if they didn't know from day one). He was against raising the minimum wage. He was weak on public housing. And of course, all three times, he ran against "better" Democrats. And really, he bought himself his third term, just as he's trying to buy his way into the presidency.

[dsc]

4. I have to say while teaching is a hard job and all

I am so glad I am a teacher when I read this kind of crap. No way, no how, would this behavior be tolerated in schools for any length of time. No, we aren't all angels but I just can't imagine daring to say this stuff at work. I mean, who puts models of peni on people's desks. If I did that to another guy my ass would be canned so fast your head would spin.

[pnwmom]

7. One of my relatives worked in the financial industry in that time period and she told

lots of stories like that.

[dsc]

9. I just have to say it mystifies me.

[Blue_true]

33. People insist on applying today's work environment to the 80s

and 90s, that is wrong, those were times when conduct that would get a person instantly fired today was tolerated. I had bosses who slept with their direct reports during those times.

[pnwmom]

35. Bloomberg was in control of that work environment and they weren't ALL like that.

None of the places I worked at were -- that's why I mentioned my relative's experience.

But Bloomberg headed an organization that systematically created a hostile, sexually charged atmosphere for women employees. His choice.

[Blue_true]

37. None of the places you worked at were.

I worked in a decidedly male dominated workplace and ALL of the places that I worked at were like that, until the mid 90s when Hillary made job rights for females a public issue.

[pnwmom]

38. And you weren't in charge of them. But Bloomberg WAS in charge and set the example

that his male managers followed.

He wasn't a victim of the culture -- he CREATED it. He could have created a culture like the ones that existed in my workplaces but he didn't.

His choice.

[spooky3]

44. Good points. And, I worked in an environment like that

And people knew it was wrong then. We even had diversity officers, etc. But the people in power allowed it to go on.

[Blue_true]

91. The reasons why they allowed it to go on varies.

Some are just cowards. Others see a lot of grey traps that they fall into regardless of the decision that is made, so they look the other way and hope problems go away, or they talk to the problem people privately and hope that is enough.

After my first company I found it necessary to list some specific examples of problematic conduct for the second company, now that is a mine field that required a lawyer that knew employment law, because if I just went out an listed problems that I saw and didn't want to see again, I could end up on the losing end in Court.

[spooky3]

99. I think if you read the .pdf, you won't see many grey areas there. nt

[Blue_true]

87. I own a business and owned one that failed.

I am the person in charge. It is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. People flirt or have relationships and fall out with eachother, that leaves an owner fumbling through the employment manual trying to figure out what to do. In my first business I got to the point where I could not afford lawyers to help me out, so if I got sued for making a good faith bad decision, I was screwed.

Believe me, IT IS NOT as cut and dried as you make it out from the perspective as a business owner and there are times when I just don't want to deal with interpersonal shit that falls into my lap, I just want to focus on products, so there is a desire to just overlook some things that people hit me with. I wanted to raise this point in an earlier post but backed off because of a conversation that I had yesterday with a person that felt some people on DU bragged about what they have (the person singled out one in particular).

[pnwmom]

90. Did you even read the lawsuit? She's not accusing him or the other men of "flirting."

Telling a group of women to give blow jobs to a male employee for his birthday -- yes, even as a joke -- isn't flirting. It's gross.

[Blue_true]

108. Yes, that is over the line. I never witnessed any boss personally

say that to females to their faces, but did hear things behind those womens' backs. If you look back on that now without perspective on how much things have changed since the mid 90s and hold people that were in charge responsible without considering how they have changed, then I think that we miss an opportunity to push society forward and forever end bad conduct by people that are in charge.

[Squinch]

56. This. I remember when the ADA came out in 1990 that made it so there was actually some

recourse for women who had been harassed. It was considered hilarious.

[Blue_true]

93. People ignored the first attempts. Hillary coming into the White House in 93

after Bill took office was enormous. She put the issue front and center and it grew legs from there.

[Squinch]

55. In finance, ALL of them were.

On the other hand, women I know who worked for his organization do say he was one of the first to promote women in any numbers to high level positions.

[Blue_true]

94. I believe the head of his company is a thirties or forties something woman. nt

[Squinch]

54. I worked in the financial industry in that time period. That was the norm. Yes, we hated

it, but no one expected anything to change. It had never been any different. Like in history. Ever. THere was no impetus to change because no one understood that it was wrong. It was just what was.

If you're going to have a candidate who was a success in the financial industry in that time, you're going to have this kind of thing.

What has he done since we began, as a culture, to acknowledge that this behavior was wrong?

[pnwmom]

57. How come no one in the financial industry understood it was wrong, and yet plenty of people

in other corporations did understand?

But I disagree about the financial industry. Yes, the problems were widespread, but they weren't universal. My relative who told me her stories finally ended up in a division with men who didn't behave like that. It's all about leadership.

[Squinch]

58. I went from a financial company to a financial publishing company. The publishing company

was headed by a woman. If anything, the harassment was worse there.

[pnwmom]

59. My favorite job was with a large polling company.

When I went on a trip with the top VP in the company, I shared with him, in broad terms, some sexually charged comments I'd been getting from a certain other VP. (He had only been there for 6 months and was the only person at any level who behaved that way.)

Later, some older women in the operating departments thanked me. They said the top VP had gone around to all the operating departments, questioning the women about this guy's behavior with them. Then the VP raked the guy over the coals and told him his job was on the line. One more incident and he was out.

So I know that Bloomberg, the owner, could have changed the atmosphere overnight, by having an all hands on deck moment with his managers. But he was enjoying himself too much.

(At my other jobs I didn't run into any men like this -- but I knew they were out there.)

[Squinch]

60. What has he done since the norm changed?

[pnwmom]

61. How would we know? When women would complain, he'd have them sign NDA's.

And women who wanted to keep their jobs probably wouldn't be likely to complain. My sister never did because she needed her job.

[Squinch]

63. Three did. I wonder what those years were. I suppose we'll soon find out, since he released

them from the NDAs.

[pnwmom]

64. Three that we know of. Three that he's agreed to release.

And he said these were cases where he'd "said something" and they were all involving employees.

Warren also asked about NDAs about gender discrimination. He didn't address that issue -- and he didn't acknowledge whether he'd signed any NDAs with women outside of the Bloomberg Org. Men who behave badly with women often don't restrict themselves to behaving badly at work.

[Squinch]

65. They were the ones that were against him. I really don't understand why people keep saying things

like, "Three that we know of. Three that he's agreed to release." The assumption seems to be that he cherry picked these three. This is logic-defying and absurd.

He made a public statement, widely publicized, widely circulated - front page news, even - releasing ALL the women who had NDA's with him.

If he is cherrypicking, how do the three that he cherrypicked know they are the ones who he has cherrypicked?

And how does he keep the "non-cherrypicked" others that people insist are out there from availing themselves of the release from their NDAs that he made in a very, very public statement?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

[pnwmom]

67. I have never seen him make such a public statement. Link, please?

How would the work staffers who supposedly dug through the files to find these claims have known about any claims from other women in his personal life?

All I've ever seen him do is release 3 women from these claims. He didn't issue the kind of blanket release that Warren asked for.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21/808280695/bloomberg-women-who-made-complaints-about-comments-can-now-seek-nda-releases

Bloomberg: 3 Women Who Made 'Complaints About Comments' Can Seek NDA Releases

[Squinch]

68. Here:

https://www.mikebloomberg.com/news/statement-from-mike-bloomberg-on-non-disclosure-agreements?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=&utm_content=

Which was picked up by every news organization.

Also here:

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.

So if there are thousands more out there, as people seem to believe, or even one more out there, how does he stop that one from availing herself of this release? And if he tried such a thing, you and I could both write the headlines. I am sure he could too, and he's not suicidal, so it wouldn't be something he'd do.

[pnwmom]

69. All that says is that he's told 3 women who complained about 'comments they said

I'd made" that they can get released from their NDA's.

It doesn't mean there were no gender discrimination lawsuits and it doesn't mean there weren't any Org workers with NDA's his staff failed to uncover, and it doesn't mean there weren't any women in his PERSONAL life who'd signed NDAs (e.g., a housekeeper who isn't employed by the Org.)

[Squinch]

70. If there were any NDAs that his staff failed to uncover, HOW DOES HE STOP THEM FROM

AVAILING THEMSELVES OF THIS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED RELEASE? He can't.

And we don't know if ANY of the candidates have NDAs with their housekeepers. I bet some do! What I also know is that if Bloomberg's housekeeper wanted to get out of her NDA, all she'd have to do is tell the press he wasn't letting her. He's probably the SAFEST candidate in that regard.

[pnwmom]

72. Because he's only publicly announced the release of the three women, who, he said

claimed that he "said something."

And, no, a woman couldn't just tell the press he wasn't "letting her." Acknowledging the existence of the NDA in itself would violate the NDA. Going to the press to complain about not being released would also be a violation of the NDA.

[Squinch]

75. So again. If there is someone they missed, HOW DO THE THREE KNOW THEY ARE THE THREE

HE'S TALKING ABOUT, AND HOW DOES THE ONE WHO WAS MISSED KNOW THEY WERE THE ONE THAT WAS MISSED?

They don't. If someone wants out of the NDA, they will show up. This doesn't prevent anyone from doing that. This allows anyone with an NDA against Bloomberg personally to avail themselves of the release from the NDA.

[Squinch]

66. And about the gender discrimination: I am a whole lot less offended by Bloomberg running

an organization that was guilty of gender discrimination in the 90's than I am offended by Sanders running an organization that was guilty of gender discrimination in 2016.

[Blue_true]

102. You met an amazing person in that top VP. That was a rarity in the industry

that I worked in. In my field, more than likely that VP would have been sleeping with his secretary, or had a woman on the payroll who didn't seem to do anything but show up late and leave early.

[Blue_true]

98. I worked in an engineering company. The women when I came in were

Secretaries, file clerks, or women that were on the payroll and no one outside a couple of people knew why. Attractive women were simply leered at and no man gave that a second though.

Earlier when I was in college, I had an upper middleclass classmate brag that the females on campus were there to get "MRS" degrees, so I might as well have "fun" with them (he didn't mean joking around fun) - interestingly, three of my five best friends in college were females and the relationships was platonic.

[Blue_true]

32. I did not work around female colleagues until the mid 80's.

I heard stories of females finding "gifts" on their desks. The only way to catch the perps was to put up hidden cameras. I believe the behavior was scary for the women, but it happened and it was hard to corrall.

[handmade34]

5. that

is very difficult to read...

[left-of-center2012]

6. Wasn't this lawsuit tossed out?

Why bring it up if the court wouldn't hear it?

[pnwmom]

8. Not tossed out. It was settled and she signed an NDA.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/former-co-worker-corroborates-allegation-that-bloomberg-told-pregnant-employee-to-kill-it/

As Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg’s poll numbers continue to rise, the billionaire financial mogul is facing increased scrutiny over reports that he created a workplace culture of rampant misogyny, bullying, and sexual harassment–including an incident where he allegedly told a pregnant female employee that she should “kill it.” Although the female employee, Sekiko Sakai Garrison, sued and eventually reached a confidential settlement with Bloomberg, one of her co-workers publicly confirmed for the first time that he too witnessed the former New York City mayor make the comment, according to the Washington Post.

“I remember she had been telling some of her girlfriends that she was pregnant,” David Zielenziger, a former Bloomberg technology writer said in an interview with the Post. “And Mike came out and I remember he said, ‘Are you going to kill it?’ And that stopped everything. And I couldn’t believe it.”

SNIP

Zielenziger, who had never previously spoken publicly about the matter and was not deposed as part of Garrison’s lawsuit, told the news outlet that Bloomberg’s behavior toward Garrison was “outrageous,” but not unusual.

[left-of-center2012]

12. Soooo ...

Attack Bloomberg with a lawsuit that never made it to trial?

geeze

[pnwmom]

15. It wasn't just a single lawsuit. There were multiple lawsuits by multiple women, which is the point

Warren was making. And there are witnesses who have since come forward who confirmed some of the statements in the lawsuit. And there was the "Wit and Wisdom" pamphlet his employees gave him at a party, that included similar statements he'd made.

Do you feel the same way about the women who filed complaints that never went to trial against Roger Ailes?

[Squinch]

73. I'm reading in another post that it was 67. In a company of 20,000 people. That's actually

quite a good record. I've worked in companies with that many complaints and a tenth of the number of employees.

[pnwmom]

74. The question is about how many were against HIM. We still don't know. nt

[Squinch]

76. Yes we do. It was three. And I think you know that.

[pnwmom]

78. I don't have the implicit faith in him that you do. His statement seemed very narrowly tailored

to me. He should have just agreed to sign EW's blanket version. What harm could there have been, if there were only those 3?

[Squinch]

79. I don't have implicitfaith in him. I am logically looking at the fact that he released anyone with

NDAs against him personally. Because if any were missed, the three that were found don't know they were the ones that were found and any that were missed don't know they were the ones that were missed.

I think this was a good faith effort to uncover all of them, and if it missed any, this statement covers them too, because he can't exclude them from his publicly stated release.

That's not implicit faith. That is simple logic!

[jmg257]

24. 67 claims of harrassement... whats one more that he settled

For six figures matter? in case you dont get it.

Yeesh and this type of shit is on DU.

[Squinch]

71. Against a company of 20,000 employees? That's actually an excellent record.

[spooky3]

30. Do you not understand how settlement works? Because of

The huge costs and time delays of trials, both sides have an incentive to settle rather than go to trial if there is any merit in the charges. If there were no merit, the party with more resources may hang tough and insist that the other drop the suit, or go to trial and gamble on winning.

[Squinch]

77. That works both ways. The object of the complaint has an incentive to settle even if they did not

do what was alleged if the complainer will settle for an amount less than the cost of fighting the complaint.

[spooky3]

81. They do, but my primary point is that settlements typically mean that there was at least SOME

merit in the complaint, contrary to what the DUer to whom I was responding implied. Big companies with resources may settle even when there is zero merit, but they typically are confident that they will win, and are typically also concerned about sending the signal that they are easy to shake down with baseless complaints. Settling may also make them look guilty to the public, prospective employees, customers, etc. So, they may not settle unless they realize that there probably were incidents that were wrongful.

Further, if the complainant is an individual who has just lost her job, for example, she is very unlikely to be able to get a good attorney to take her case when it is frivolous and very unlikely to want to even start the process when she is out of money and stressed. Yes, a few people may file completely baseless complaints, but my guess would be that for every case like this, there are another 10 people (at least) who do not file any formal charges. So this is another reason to believe that a settlement means there was at least some merit.

[Squinch]

82. And I am saying that is not true. There can be NO merit to the complaint and good reasons to settle.

[spooky3]

83. You are stating your opinion, and I am stating mine, about what happens, in real life.

I have been involved in such cases myself, and I teach about issues related to this case.

[Squinch]

88. No. That's not an opinion. Baseless claims are settled all the time. And if you teach

about this, you know that.

[spooky3]

104. This is getting tiresome. Go back and read my first post, which did NOT claim

that no baseless claim was ever settled.

If you want to cling to an opinion that settlements TYPICALLY do not imply anything about the merits of the claims, be my guest, but do not try to tell me your opinions are the same as facts. They are not.

And, oh yes, you are factually incorrect in some of your other posts about the evolution of the law on sexual harassment. It would be a good idea for you to read up on the prior cases before asserting things such as that it wasn't deemed illegal until the 90s. There were multiple cases well before then. And if you even read wiki, you know that. But someone who thinks that the Americans with Disabilities Act is the one that outlawed sexual harassment does not. Sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it was primarily through later cases, not statutes, that this interpretation emerged in the 1970s and 1980s.

[Squinch]

107. And as I said, though the 1964 act was there, it had no provisions for how to fight a claim of

sexual harassment. It was the ADA that provided the mechanism for fighting a sexual harassment case.

[spooky3]

109. YOU ARE INCORRECT. Check out Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986 USSC).

And there were multiple lower level cases before this one got to the Supreme Cout.

[pnwmom]

111. Women had won court cases before then.

https://time.com/4286575/sexual-harassment-before-anita-hill/

By 1977, three court cases confirmed that a woman could sue her employer for harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, using the EEOC as the vehicle for redress. The Supreme Court upheld these early cases in 1986 with Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, which was based on the complaints of Mechelle Vinson, a bank employee whose boss intimidated her into having sex with him in vaults and basements up to fifty times.

[redqueen]

47. .

[LanternWaste]

53. So, pretend an illustration is an attack. Geez, indeed.

I gotta hand it to the melodrama you hand out like so many pennies in a pocket.

And with the ever-broadening definition of word 'attack' by you guys, it's gonna mean any damn thing we want it to by the end of the primary.

[Skya Rhen]

16. Is this one of the 3 women that Bloomberg just released from the NDA? If not, why not?

[jmg257]

10. Wonder if this is one of the 3 chosen to be released from her NDA. Somehow, I doubt it.

[pnwmom]

11. I think she was. This copy was already out there, so what further harm could happen to him? n/t

[Liberty Belle]

31. It's what could happen to us if Bloomberg loses to Trump.

Moderates especially women may decide to just vote for Trump, if they think the economy is okay, if they think the Democratic nominee is no better than Trump on his treatment of women.

Personally I think 65 sexual assault charges or so against Bloomberg and the company he runs should be disqualifying for any Democrat.

[BusyBeingBest]

34. There are no assault charges.

[pnwmom]

36. Garrison talked about one of the employees grabbing her. And Bloomberg created an atmosphere

where the men felt that was okay.

[BusyBeingBest]

39. Oh for gods sake. Bloomberg

Doesn’t have any assault charges against him. “Creating An atmosphere”—that’s a pretty fuzzy way to connect someone to an alleged assault or inappropriate touching.

[pnwmom]

41. Women usually don't press assault charges against their employers. But some of them do

give them copies of lawsuits they intend to file, have their attorneys negotiate, and end up signing NDA's.

[Garrett78]

46. Did you actually read the document?

[Liberty Belle]

45. I mean sexual harassment charges, but those are still very bad.

If even a fraction of the allegations are true, things like suggesting a pregnant employee "kill it,"asking a female employee if she'd lie down and let people fuck her (or words along that line,) and turning a blind eye to male employees repeatedly putting penis and vagina shaped objects on a woman's desk even while she was on the phone to harass her are unconscionable.

This is the 100th anniversary of women getting the right to vote. If we can't have woman candidate, which many here feel we were robbed of last time, is it too much to ask that the DNC not stick us with a man who has a long history of being accused of abusive treatment of women? Please think of the role model for our children, our daughters, and stop shoving predatory men down our throats for the highest office in the land!

[redqueen]

48. THANK YOU!

It's bad enough the republicans put one in office.

If Democrats try it, I doubt it will go as well as many seem to expect.

[Glimmer of Hope]

14. Disgusting. I could't read the whole complaint.

.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. Yikes.

[tblue37]

20. Wow.That is ugly stuff. I need to take a shower after reading that. nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

21. Seriously, fuck that guy.

[Baked Potato]

25. We Potatoes were discussing billionaires today...

We were wondering how fucked up the “billionaires” are in general in that Bloomberg is the cleanest one they could find to run.

[dotism]

28. Some are kinder, maybe.

Tom Steyer seems like a stand-up guy, even ignoring the billionaire bit. Perhaps not the absolute best candidate, but methinks he is a relatively good egg, all things considered.

[Baked Potato]

29. Yeah, Steyer seems like a good one. The billionaires

don't have good track records. Those settlements cover up a lot of misdeeds.

[democratisphere]

26. All of these lawsuits were amicably settled by both parties.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

40. Lol. Yeah with a payoff and an NDA.

And what do you mean amicably? I suppose it’s better than pistols at dawn but I’ve never heard of a sexual harassment/discrimination wrongful termination lawsuit being described as amicable.

[democratisphere]

43. Happens all the time in the corporate world.

[jmg257]

50. LOL - yep 6 figure payoffs can buy a lot of friends!

[denem]

42. I had to stop reading it; Triggered.

[redqueen]

49. Yeah. Let him go ahead and start firing at Bernie. He should do it and find out

what shit gets fired back in return.

[Squinch]

80. Bloomberg has been accused of running a company that was guilty of sex discrimination in

the 90s. Yes, that bothers me.

Sanders was accused of running an organization that was guilty of sex discrimination in 2016.

That bothers me a whole lot more.

[redqueen]

84. That's nice for you. Make a list of all the noxious things each have said about / done to women

personally.

You are of course free to decide Bloomberg comes out smelling better. I know I'll disagree with the you on that, as will many others.

[Squinch]

86. Yep. He's said horrible things. And he's been a loyal and enormous supporter of

Planned Parenthood for decades. When the federal funds to PP were cut, he wrote a check to replace them.

There is a lot of good and bad in all of them. But he's done concrete things to help.

And though much is made of the 67 complaints here, 67 complaints in a company of 20,000 employees is actually an excellent record.

[redqueen]

89. Also a loyal supporter of GW Bush.

But that's ok because reasons

[Squinch]

92. And Liz was a Republican till she was 47. And Harry Reid had to stop Bernie from primarying Obama.

And Biden insists that Republicans are really nice people.

[redqueen]

96. Funny that you bring up Warren, since Bloomberg donated to get opponent.

'The hubris is unbelievable': Dems seethe over Bloomberg GOP donations
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/26/bloomberg-republican-endorsement-2020-073807

[Squinch]

97. Yes he did. And that was terrible. But it was to reward him for his vote to pass a gun control law.

I don't like it, but each of the times he funded a horrible republican it was to either get a gun control law or a climate change law passed.

As I say, I think it was a terrible decision even if it was for a cause I like.

And Bernie has voted consistently against Russian sanctions. At a time when Russia is taking over our Democracy. I don't like that either.

[redqueen]

100. You measure Bernie's record against Bloomberg's and come down on the side of Bloomberg.

For me it's the opposite, obv.

Lucky for you Bloomberg is one of the few people capable of buying elections.

[Squinch]

103. My only hope is that he can buy it back from trump. I'll stop sparring now. I wish you well.

[redqueen]

115. Thanks, and back atcha nt

[spooky3]

106. Can I interrupt and say I don't like how EITHER of them have dealt with this? nt

[redqueen]

113. Sure, of course. I'd expect you won't be voting for him in the primary.

The issue is, if he and Bloomberg are the last two standing, which would you rather be stuck defending to people who say they won't vote in the GE, in order to boost turnout?

[wildflower]

117. It goes beyond discrimination though

Particularly #85 from the document linked in the OP.

[redqueen]

85. It's disgusting to see people working so hard to defend Bloomberg on this

and it makes me wonder if they defend every sexist asshole from the 90's cause "times were different then".

THE 90'S!

Fucking hell you'd think he did this shit in the 50's!

WTF!

[Squinch]

95. Um, yes. Whether you think it's disgusting or not, there was not even a law that gave women

any way to address sexual harassment until 1990. I think it was in the ADA that that was first done.

Before that there was a law that said don't do it, but no way to for women to complain and no way to enforce the law.

So yes, the 90s. That was when things changed.

[redqueen]

112. Did you mean the civil rights act of 1964?

In 1991 it was formally codified into law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1991

[budkin]

101. He should go ahead and drop out now

We're not going to put up with that crap like the Trump party will.

[dotism]

105. Indeed.

The idea that there is a defense for this behavior within this very thread (It was the 90s! C'mon!) troubles me deeply.

[lapucelle]

110. All candidates should be held to a standard concerning allegations like this.

Amy Klobuchar was subjected to intense scrutiny and negative press over workers' complaints about workplace demands, as was Joe Biden for his tendency to invade personal space. Some candidates (like Elizabeth Warren) have themselves been victims, both in the past and even recently. Now it's Mike Bloomberg's turn to examine his past conduct.

Anyone running for the nomination of the Democratic Party should have to answer the hard questions concerning workplace abuses like sexual comments and innuendo, hostile work environments, sex discrimination,
sexual violence, and toxic, predatory cultures that especially target and victimize women, regardless of whether or not the candidate's role at the top of the organization kept him or her so busy that they were "unaware" that ongoing, pervasive problems even existed or so feckless that they insist that the abuses and the abusers are beyond their control.

[spooky3]

116. Totally agree. Nt

[dotism]

118. Hear, hear! nt