[Badray]

I don't respond well to "have to" myself, but these workers are too stupid to realize that not only do their own purchases from other makers not help with job security, but what their purchase says to everyone who knows they work there has a mutiplier effect.

I've driven just about every manufacturers cars over the last 30 years and done are so bad that I couldn't buy one given the huge discount that Ford/GM/Chrysler offer to their employees.

Then again no one ever confused autoworkers who think that they owe their job to the union and not to the company that pays them with rocket scientists. Come to think of it, no one from Ford/GM/Chrysler management has sent anyone to the moon recently either.

[Don Joe]

I don't respond well to "have to" myself, but these workers are too stupid to realize that not only do their own purchases from other makers not help with job security, but what their purchase says to everyone who knows they work there has a mutiplier effect.

And what about the guy who owns a car from the verboten brands list prior to taking the job?

Or the employee who's Ford dies, and in the same timeframe, he inherits a car from The Verboten Brand List?

Or... the scenarios are endless.

"Taking a job" and "buying a car" are not two events that are linked at the mons pubis.

This decision is heavy-handed, short-sighted, and stupid -- and suggestive of a kind of corporate desperation.

What next? Demanding that all mortgages be done via Ford Credit? All clothing bear the Ford logo?

The fact that one entity "can" coerce another into doing something upon pain of termination of employment may be "legal", but that does not make it right.

Recall the title of a recent book on he vagaries of the Lord Clinton Regime, titled something like, "Because He Could."

Then.... extrapolate.