[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.

[Badray]

Yes, the scenarios are endless and yours are all strawmen.

No one is being terminated. Employees who comply with this policy are given preferential treatment. It's good for the employee and employer both to increase sales of their products. This encourages it.

If you don't like a condition that an employer places on you, QUIT! I've been fired for less. I've quit for less, but I don't deny the employer's right to run his place of business as he sees fit.