[SyneRyder]

Even if it was purely just to follow their internal work calendar - which seems unlikely, as they weren't people in their work group - it doesn't explain this:

>"Screenshots of some of their calendars, including their names and details, subsequently made their way outside the company."

There is no reason to be sharing a work calendar with others outside the company, and without that person's permission.

[leereeves]

> subsequently made their way outside the company

Does Google allege that the fired workers were responsible for that?

The quote clearly suggests that, but if Google won't make a clear allegation (in a statement containing other clear allegations), they must not have much evidence, if any.

[lordlimecat]

If google is making false statements on the matter they will be in for a world of hurt. Its just not likely that large, publicly traded, heavily scrutinized corps like Google are going to lie about matters soon to be litigated.

Meanwhile the individuals in question have zero reason NOT to lie to reporters; they're under no legal obligations and can say what they want.

[thomasz]

> If google is making false statements on the matter they will be in for a world of hurt.

Is that so? When faced with unions in their infancy, often the companies come out with all guns blazing. They might even face fines after an incredibly lengthy court battle, but putting down that organizing effort down while it hasn't taken roots is more important to them.

[lordlimecat]

Opposing unions in an illegal manner is not likely to impress the various oversight agencies, or any courts that get involved.

Once a company becomes big enough, claims that they're lying to persecute a handful of users become implausible because the potential liability for doing so vastly outweighs the minor benefits they might gain. And this isnt the 1920s, you can't just fire people for trying to unionize and realistically think that it will solve the problem or that no one will notice.

Ignore the names of the companies / individuals involved, their histories, etc-- just look at the incentives that each party has around lying vs telling the truth-- and it's not hard to accept that Google is more likely to be truthful about this than a terminated employee.

[leereeves]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Google is lying.

I suspect they have evidence of exactly what they said, that the screenshots were obtained by people outside Google, but don't have evidence that the fired workers were responsible for that.

Given the other contents of the statement, I think if Google had evidence that a fired worker sent a screenshot outside the company, they would say so.

[Strom]

> If google is making false statements on the matter they will be in for a world of hurt. Its just not likely that large, publicly traded, heavily scrutinized corps like Google are going to lie about matters soon to be litigated.

The potential lying from Google is also done by individuals who have no obligations to tell the truth. To me it seems incredibly rare that a human being (the person(s) doing the lying) gets any significant punishment for actions credited to a company. In my observation the more common scenarios are that the company and employees either fully get away with blatant lies or the company has to pay a small fine in relation to its profits.

[lordlimecat]

>The potential lying from Google is also done by individuals who have no obligations to tell the truth.

They're representing the company in their official capacities, and as such the company will bear any consequences. There can also be individual sanctions, such as happened with Elon Musk who is now individually forbidden from being CEO because of a tweet he made.

> In my observation the more common scenarios are that the company and employees either fully get away with blatant lies

Then you're not paying attention. Public companies lying to shareholders open themselves up to massive liability, including SEC action and civil suits from those shareholders.

[koheripbal]

I'm sure it's just a crazy coincidence...

[Fiadliel]

Google's statement does not claim that the screenshots were shared with others. "Outside the company" covers a multitude of possibilities. It could also include saving screenshots in one's personal GMail account (in Google Docs, etc.), which Google may be able to access (I don't know if they can or not, but the relevant company is the US, where these things are usually more legal than in the EU).

If so, it might suggest a wish to share with people in future, e.g. in a court case, etc., but it doesn't necessarily mean that this information _has been_ shared.

It could also mean that the information _was_ shared with others, just pointing out that it isn't exactly what the statement says.