Some technology workers in a large company are currently prevented from performing functions, although they continue to receive their salary. This ‘unusual’ situation involves specialized professionals who, for contractual reasons, have to respect a period of removal from the activity. The measure generated surprise in the technological sector and raises legal issues about professional freedom.
Non -competition clauses
The situation occurs at Deepmind, a British research company in Artificial Intelligence, belonging to the Google group.
Several workers who have completed recent projects are now required to remain inactive. The reason is the existence of non -competition contracts up to 12 months. These prevent us from entering rival companies during this period.
According to a Business Insider report, these workers are kept “in pause” as they do not have new internal projects attributed. Although they continue to receive salary, they are prevented from accepting external proposals. Many show frustration because they are removed from a constantly evolving sector, fearing losing important technical updates.
Confirmation by Microsoft’s guardian
Nando de Freitas, Vice President of Artificial Intelligence at Microsoft, confirmed the existence of these contracts. In a post on social network X, he said that several Deepmind employees contact him weekly. They seek alternatives and ways to escape the non -competition clause. It clarifies the same as many manifest “despair” and ask for opportunities outside the Google group.
The affected workers refer that the removal represents a career delay. The artificial intelligence sector is growing rapidly and requires constant update. The fact that they are unable to work for a year put them at a competitive disadvantage. This forced removal, although paid, is viewed as a professional barrier.
Changes to the United States as a solution
It is read in the same report that some of these professionals started looking for transfers to the United States. Reason is concerned with American laws, where this type of clause is illegal in states such as California. Google headquarters is located precisely in this state, making the practice impractical in this jurisdiction. This has been an alternative to escape the work block.
In contrast, in the United Kingdom, non -competition clauses are legally accepted, provided they are considered reasonable. They are valid to protect the commercial interests of the employer. Deepmind uses this legal basis to justify the contracts. However, the impact on workers’ lives is being widely discussed.
Measure aims to protect commercial secrets
The clauses aim to prevent technical and strategic knowledge from moving to competing companies. By keeping former employees inactive, companies guarantee the protection of their research projects. It is a common practice in companies that develop sensitive technology. Google, through Deepmind, applies this policy in British territory.
We recommend:
However, it reveals that the measure has relevant side effects. In addition to personal frustration, it also affects the company’s work environment and reputation. Some employees say they have signed the contracts without realizing their consequences. Others claim to have been pressured to accept the terms to maintain their positions.
US legislation prohibits this type of clause
In the United States, non -competition clauses are prohibited at the federal level. In 2024, the federal trade commission considered that these limitations undermine workers. It argues that they maintain low wages and prevent innovation. The organism considers these practices as negative for the US economy.
The legal difference between the two countries creates an unequal environment within the same business group. While California workers can freely change company, British headquarters face severe restrictions. This imbalance is motivating transfer requests. Several workers seek jurisdictions where they can maintain professional freedom.
Google keeps silence on the subject
So far, the Google group has not publicly commented on the case. He refused to confirm the existence of the clauses nor responded to the allegations presented by the workers. The lack of communication has increased uncertainty. The affected professionals claim to feel helpless and without formal channels to submit complaints.
Internal reactions and possible future consequences
Internally, there are reports of increasing dissatisfaction. Some employees consider the excessive and harmful measure to career development.
Google, despite being acting within British legality, may face problems in retention of talent. The case highlights the challenges of global companies that operate in multiple legal jurisdictions.
The situation illustrates how a legal practice can still generate controversy. The balance between sensitive information protection and workers’ rights is under discussion. With the advancement of artificial intelligence, these themes gain added relevance. The future may bring new regulations to protect both parties.
Also read:
