🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6i914b$b13$9@newsreader.digex.net>,
Bentley <bentley@access4.digex.net> wrote:
>Harbir Singh (harbir@vt.edu) said something like:
>: I do not accept that automotive companies should be able to dictate what
>: their employees drive. If I worked for a car company, it would be enough
>: that I dedicate most of my waking life to it, that it benefits from my
>: intellect (such as it is) and hard work, that I owe it loyalty and
>: allegiance. They have no business expecting me to drive a particular car
>: unless they pay for it and don't tell me what to drive with my own money.
>
>It's a touchy issue. However, most IBM employees I know carry ThinkPads,
>and not Toshibas; few Microsoft employees I know use OS/2 or Macs. Isn't
>it reasonable for an employer to expect the employee to have enough faith
>and loyalty in the product to use it himself?

If the employer feels that way, then the employee's use of the product
constitutes advertising and the employer should pay for advertising with
free goods or a very hefty discount. If the employee still refuses the
product, then I would think s/he should work elsewhere.

But are Rolls-Royce salespeople expected to own a Rolls? ;) (Actually, I
suspect that would *detract* from the snob appeal that is such a strong
selling point of the Rolls!)