Opinion by Mathew Carr

Nov. 21, 2024 — Baku, Azerbaijan — Given the hundreds of billions of dollars of profit per year made out of fossil fuels, it’s hardly surprising that that particular earnings stream is being fiercely protected this week at global climate talks.

I worked for Bloomberg News for almost 20 years until May 2020, when I was fired for not being capable.

Bloomberg, which has claimed it’s the most influential firm on earth because its clients are the 0.1% most wealthy, reckoned a few days after I told it my Mum had a partially collapsed lung was a perfect time to get rid of me. (I would be distracted, you see.)

Bloomberg, which loves showcasing its green credentials, gets about $1 billion +++ a year from fossil fuels I reckon of its $10 billion +++ in yearly sales. (It does not break the figures out publicly)

After being sacked , I then claimed in court the firm deliberately started a dispute with me during my employ then sneakily performed one of the most sophisticated unfair dismissals in global corporate history.

How sophisticated?:

I said my dismissal was about my whistleblowing, which demonstrated the company was improperly protecting fossil-fuel money (revenue, profit, investment of its own and its banking and trading clients) by using news judgements that were flawed in the extreme.

For example, its news largely ignored (and still does) the global carbon budget implied by the 1.5C target in the 2015 Paris climate deal.

One bit of the story of my dismissal that I have not said much about until now is how the firm used psychology to deliberately attack my mental health.

Given that I’m in Baku as I write this — and waiting for new negotiation texts to drop on new United Nations Article 6 carbon markets — it seems opportune to report this:

One of the most stupid arguments made by Bloomberg’s highly paid Kings Counsel James Laddie (at Matrix Chambers no less) demonstrated just how far into the matrix I really was.

Related story:

How the 0.1% Contains and Exploits the Rest of the World’s Population (4)

It was October 2021, and my tribunal case had been hitting my time, mental health and finances for about 16 months (to say nothing about my long-suffering family) — I would not recommend taking on a billionaire (such as Michael Bloomberg, former New York City mayor and US presidential candidate) in court.

Mr Laddie was ramping up the pressure, saying my so-called whistleblowing wasn’t whistleblowing, at all. It didn’t meet the legal criteria for whistleblowing under UK employment law. He was one of Britain’s most expensive employment barristers, commanding £24,000 for a one-day hearing, as I found out.

The atmosphere is not a specific-enough environment to blow the whistle about, he argued. Really? The skeleton document was also signed by Bloomberg’s lawfirm CMS, a known lawfare outfit.

(Search for “Bloomberg” on CarrZee.org for more examples of the sophistication)

You need to realise that Bloomberg studies the psychology of its employees very carefully (as do most US corporations — lots of surveillance…most of it secret … lots of behind-the-scenes analysis of employee performance on top of the obvious stuff by your manager).

And Bloomberg News realised I loved article 6 of the Paris climate deal because I’d been whistleblowing about it for years (see below for 30+ pages of it) and I’m a market-structure nerd.

So some of its most outrageous arguments were saved for a special “section six” of its “skeleton argument”, as highly paid lawyers like to call them. This particular document was titled “respondent’s answer.” Such missives are presented to a court a few days before a hearing, to help prepare the judge.

The hearing was to decide whether my case really was a whistleblowing case.

Here is what Mr Laddie wrote, with my …what’s really going on here …explanations, coloured in blue.

The “Article” 6 arguments

Ground of Appeal 1 – protected disclosures [whistleblowing] relating to damage to the environment (ERA [UK Employment Rights Act], s.43B(1)(e))

The respondent [Bloomberg] contends that insofar as the employment tribunal considered that the appellant [me Mathew Carr] had reasonable prospects of success of proving that any of the alleged protected disclosures were disclosures of information tending to show that the
environment was being damaged, it erred in law:

6.1

By way of introduction, the context to the appellant’s alleged protected
disclosures was his references in each of them to the climate crisis. He was not
alleging that the respondent [Bloomberg] itself, or any other specific entity, was directly damaging the environment.

[This is not right, I contend. My whistleblowing showed we at Bloomberg were ignoring the Paris climate deal and its implied carbon budget, regularly. I argued Bloomberg clients — banks, commodity giants — were therefore making poor investment choices for the climate and for all our kids futures. I had to be a little circumspect in my language because I didn’t want to get fired — ha. Silly me.]

6.2

It is submitted that simply referring to the climate crisis or even particular
aspects of it or something related to it, e.g. the global carbon market, is incapable of
constituting a protected disclosure. Otherwise, millions of workers in England and
Wales make protected disclosures every day, on the basis that the climate crisis, or
aspects of it, are commonplace topics of discussion in (and outside) the workplace.

[This is classic gaslighting and dismissiveness by the establishment when someone points out their bad behavior. I never “simply referred” to the climate crisis. I showed how we at Bloomberg were downplaying carbon markets that place a penalty on emissions … around the time that Mr Donald Trump got into the presidency the first time, for instance. We should be doing more on carbon markets, not less, I argued for years. But Bloomberg wanted to protect its precious oil and natural gas markets. The US is the biggest oil producer, don’t forget. I failed to realise just how risky my behavior was.]

6.3

As far as the respondent [Bloomberg] is aware, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has never previously had an opportunity to consider the requirements of a protected disclosure alleged to fall under ERA, s.43B(1)(e).

[This shows that even Bloomberg’s highly paid barrister realised my arguments were novel and that he should not have been arguing they should be struck out without a full hearing. Yet, that’s what he went ahead and successfully did…knowing that he was taking advantage of a self litigant, which is what I was at this point …having had my bank accounts severely drained by my effort for 16 months …and counting.]

6.4

[Tomorrow the UN talks may properly create a new global carbon market under Article 6.4 of Paris. …or not. Bloomberg saved its most perverse argument for its 6.4 section. If it’s a coincidence, it’s pretty weird, right?]

• It is submitted that in order for a disclosure to be a qualifying disclosure within ERA [UK Employment Rights Act], s.43B(1)(e):
  • the information disclosed must be of specific damage to a specific environment rather than environmental damage in general; and/or
  • in order for the maker of the disclosure to have a reasonable belief that the disclosure is in the public interest, the information must:
    • have an element of novelty; or
    • relate to specific damage to a specific environment.

It is noted that the public interest test was introduced in large part to combat the problems created by the decision in Parkins v. Sodexho [2002] IRLR 109.  

It is a particularly apt mechanism for avoiding a situation in which every discussion of the climate crisis amounts to a protected disclosure.

[I added some emphasis — the bold. Here was the most powerful media organisation on earth arguing the atmosphere wasn’t a specific enough environment to warrant protection by British whistleblowing law. The UK judges bought this argument, by the way …multiple judges in fact. Further, Mr Laddie argued that my belief that I was doing right for the climate and the public interest — by hassling my terrifyingly bad managers on this stuff — was unreasonable. Whistleblowing doesn’t need to be novel btw.

You might argue I’m just another sore loser, who overreached on a legal front. That may well be the case. Still, I can’t believe the judiciary bought Bloomberg’s treachery, disloyalty. Britain is the 51st state of the USA, didn’t you know? The 0.1 percenters have to back each other up, didn’t you know? Fuck the climate … goes their thinking, it seems … there’s money to be made.]

Exclusive: 39 pages of whistleblowing at Bloomberg News 2016-2019 deemed by UK judiciary as not specific enough

Human Rights and Process Abuse of Me a Whistleblower ‘Not Exceptional,’ Finds UK Appeal Judge Crowther (1)

(Adds CMS; Smoothed some language and added types of whistleblowing.)