As businesses rapidly adopt AI, a critical and alarming question remains unanswered: who owns the intelligence AI learns from employees, and what happens when workers are replaced by their own digital counterparts?
Cheney Hamilton, CEO of Find Your Flex Group, Research Analyst at Bloor Research, and Member of the APPG for Modern Employment, warns that businesses may be unknowingly stepping into legal and ethical disputes by replacing employees with AI-driven versions of their own work and the results could be catastrophic. She says, “Bloor Research and Find Your Flex Group are calling on businesses, policymakers, and legal experts to join the conversation now before AI-driven, fusion work outpaces regulation and leaves us playing catch-up.”
She has seen how AI is now replicating employees’ work styles, automating decision-making, and even cloning voices for customer service and believes the lines of ownership, ethics, and fair compensation are becoming dangerously blurred. If an employee is made redundant but their AI-trained system remains in place no one is asking, should they be compensated or should they have the right to demand that their AI-generated work be deleted, and that feels wrong.
At the same time, the UK government has delayed its AI regulation plans, leaving businesses and employees in legal and ethical uncertainty. While creatives challenge the government’s AI copyright proposals, employees face a parallel issue. AI is absorbing their expertise, yet employment law has not caught up to address compensation or ownership rights.
“AI is already replacing elements of human work, but without clear policies, businesses are playing with legal fire."
"Both employers and employees need to understand what fair compensation looks like when AI-trained employees are replaced by their digital counterparts, as well as how they can protect themselves from future legal disputes,” says Hamilton.
One key concern is redundancy, which is traditionally based on a role no longer being needed. But what happens if AI continues to perform the same work using an employee’s expertise, voice, and decision-making skills, effectively making them redundant? Hamilton also raises questions about whether employees should have the right to ongoing compensation or royalties for AI-generated work derived from their expertise. Should they be legally entitled to request the deletion of their AI-trained work once they leave?
She adds, “AI can be a game-changer for flexible work and multi-portfolio careers, but it also introduces a tightrope that many employers never expected to walk alone. Without clear governance, we risk creating a system where businesses benefit while workers are left behind."
"How can employees be protected against AI-driven redundancy, ensuring that human contributions are not quietly repurposed without consent?"
AI is evolving faster than employment law, and businesses face a looming legal and ethical minefield, and the conversation around AI in the workplace must shift from automation to accountability, ensuring that the benefits of AI do not come at the cost of employee rights.
