text: do you think it is fair for companies to require use of their product as terms for employment? example: if you work for a ford/gmc/chrysler position should you be required to drive one of their vehicles? if you work for dominoes should you not be allowed to order papa johns? if you work at mcdonalds should you not be allowed to go next door to burger king for lunch while in uniform, or to bring lunch back to your place of employment from some other? i think this came up between pepsi and coke a while back -- where someone in one of the uniforms was drinking the soda of the other producer.  i can't remember now the outcome of it.  honestly, i think it's ridiculous.  i personally am not going to think poorly of a company whose employee i see being a consumer of a competing product.  when i worked as a professional cake decorator, i hated smelling all the cookies and such that i worked around all day.  but i didn't have a problem grabbing a bag of oreos on my way out the store.  i can't imagine the things that a person sees in their own restaurant . . . even smelling it all day would be enough to cause me to want a change.  even the pepsi/coke thing . . . that's almost a religious experience in the us.  no one could convert me to pepsi.  does that mean i'm going to stop drinking coke when pepsi offered me a killer employment deal?  not on your life.  on the flip side, while it's a little far-fetched to think that one employee is going to change a consumer's mind, i think it's fair to ask employees to have a little respect for their employer by not participating in a competitor's business while in uniform.  it comes down to the appearance thing.  though i have to admit that when it comes to cars, that's a little different.  i have often asked my car salesman what he drives and if he doesn't drive something he's selling, i ask why.  sales as a whole though, is a little different than your run-of-the-mill employees.  if you don't believe in the product and use it - why should i?