I’ve never experienced being a ring-fenced employee after a company was sold off, but it sounds like a bad situation. From what I understand, an advantage for the company that buys the business is that it helps ensure continuity. By keeping employees in place for a set time period, the new owners can avoid disruptions and keep things running smoothly during the transition. However, it leaves employees feeling restricted or trapped, which might lead to lower morale or even resentment if they feel they’re being forced to stay in a position they don’t want.

It makes me wonder, though—why do companies choose to set up these types of restrictions in the first place? Is it all about maintaining stability during the transition, or are there other business reasons behind this strategy that make it worthwhile for the company buying the business?

I agree that ring-fenced employees often struggle with morale and feeling "trapped." New owners may desire to stabilize operations and avoid losing key talent after a transaction, thus your point regarding continuity is valid. However, I believe there's more.

Ring-fencing may safeguard the buyer's investment. Employee skills and relationships provide value to a firm acquisition. The acquisition may not benefit the new owner if employees quickly leave for competitors or related companies.

I understand why corporations apply these restrictions, but they can be unfair to employees who didn't opt into the sale. Retention bonuses and explicit opt-out processes may help resolve these issues. In this context, balancing customer and employee interests appears crucial.