This bit?
"The individual set up notifications so that they received emails detailing the work and whereabouts of those employees, including personal matters such as 1:1s, medical appointments and family activities"
There isn’t a way to separate out personal events — which shouldn’t be there, or at least should be marked private.
That this information was included, does not indicate that it was a target; it does indicate that it was a useful way for Google to attack their actions.
You can then blend the 2 calendars either in the mobile app, or by importing one to the other account.
I'm a bit surprised to hear some people would use their work calendar for personal activities, I don't see why you would do that.
There are obvious ways for calendar owners to separate the information (which was not done in the instances that Google refer to).
When you are back to back most days (common at Google) you can't be juggling multiple calendar accounts all the time, not least because a personal event doesn't show on your professional cal meaning someone can try to double book that slot.
Usually the personal details are pretty sparse -- just containing the minimum I'd normally share in person eg "dentist", "doctors", "kids school performance" / "parents evening". These would be days where I'm technically working but organising my work hours around a personal appointment (otherwise I'd just put "annual leave" if I'm taking a full or half day off).
This would be enough to fall in line with Google's statement even though I'm technically not using work's calendar for personal appointments.
>"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which could mean simply:
1) individual subscribed to other employee's work calendars, which are visible to everyone within Google,
2) individual had calendar notifications turned on, and
3) other employees posted personal matters on their work calendars.
Details around medical, family etc. are only visible if the employee adds that information to their work calendar.
I meant public as in "internally public".