Should a company ban the competitor’s product from the workplace ?
By ronnyb
@ronnyb (6113)
Jamaica
February 15, 2009 10:47am CST
Someone was telling me that a local drink manufacturer banned workers from buying a competitor product and bringing it into their workplace. So for example if you work at Pepsi you cant bring coke into their workplace. I must admit that it was the first I was hearing it and thought then that it was ludicrous that something like that could happen.I thought it through and I could see the point the company was making.
Tell me what are your views on this issue .I have something in mind but I am looking for your input so that I may compare my notes with yours. Thanks for your answer in advance
6 people like this
10 responses
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
15 Feb 09
Sometimes I wonder where loyalty went? I used to drive by a Chrysler and GM plant in the St Louis area and notice all of the foreign built brand of cars parked on their lots. These plants are laying off and eliminating workers every day it seems. Maybe if they were loyal enough to buy the product they were building this wouldn't be happening? Just my thoughts.
@ronnyb (6113)
• Jamaica
15 Feb 09
This is one of the things that I was thinking about too,that if the workers dont support their own company then how can any one else have faith in thier product.However on the flip side of that is that you may work for a company and not be able to afford the product as you dont get as much money .
1 person likes this
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
15 Feb 09
Hi ronny,
I have a friend who worked at the GM plant and is retired now. He has a great retirement plan and made a very good wage when he was working. He always bought GM products and he too can't understand why others who worked there didn't. It's a sad thing to see such great companies go down the tube. A lot of it was their own fault for not buiding the product that most people wanted to buy. It wasn't many years ago that GM built an electric car and leased several of them out to people in California for testing. Due to pressure from stock holders and big oil companies they trashed those cars even when the persons driving them wanted to buy them. There is a documentary film that proves exactly what happened. They were a plug in car that would only get 40 miles or so on a charge, at that time. A battery developer had produced a battery that would at least double that but GM went ahead and trashed them anyway. It's sad!
2 people like this
@ronnyb (6113)
• Jamaica
15 Feb 09
Yes that is so sad that as result of short sightedness and arrogance GM failed to see that their reliance on oil intensive vehicles couldnt last.Granted few companies would have predicted this as not even the technocrats predicted this one.Well maybe they knew it could happen but they didnt put measures in place to mitigate against it .sorry about your friend luckily he got good benefits ,at the rate of the current situation I wonder if these employees will do as good
@bbsr13 (4196)
• India
15 Feb 09
Hello,Ronny! The company has done no wrong in banning the product of a competitor company because seeing this the public would think that the company's product is not good or substandard goods for which its own employees are not using their products.It will create a bad name in the market.thanx.
@ronnyb (6113)
• Jamaica
16 Feb 09
I looked at it logically and I came to the same conclusion too that it would set a bad precedence for the company if its own employees didnt place any trust in the product they manufacture.Inadvertently the consumer looking on would come to the same conclusion too that the product wasnt good as who better to know than the employess themselves
@sarahruthbeth22 (43143)
• United States
8 Mar 09
My thought was it would be time to look for another job before they put up the sign " Work will make you free"In other words it is not fair.I drink both Pepsi and coke and No boss will tell me what I can or can't buy or do in my own home. Now were they going to know if you buy the other product? Monitoring their workers Every move?
@GemmaR (8517)
•
16 Feb 09
I can see where the company are coming from, but I think employees should be free to bring in whatever they like to the workplace!
If they don't want to drink the company's drink then that should be up to them shouldn't it? Free will and all that?
It's discrimination I think.
Maybe if it was a sports team they shouldn't employ people who support another team, but that's the only reason I think it would be acceptable to ban products.
@anjalisharma_iipm (805)
• India
16 Feb 09
it is very much ok and i appriciate this decision of the company to ban compitiors product in its work place. It is a good strategy to make workers brand loyal and build faith in its own product.
@jolasu (49)
• United States
16 Feb 09
I feel the same as quite a few others that have already responded. It is fair in my mind to ban competitors products in your workplace, especially if in your job you are visible to the public or consumers (whether through tour groups of a facility or actual customer contact). It would give me an impression that the company's products are substandard to the competitors.
The vehicle issue is much bigger of course, and as was stated by someone else, the American car makers didn't necessarily keep up with foreign makers as far as economy of vehicles for quite a while. However, it would seem rather two-faced for an employee being laid off from GM to get into his Toyota and drive away raging that his job was lost due to the company hurting for business. There's definately something to be said for helping maintain and support the things you depend on.
@cyberfluf (4996)
• Netherlands
15 Feb 09
My first reaction was: ridiculous! On the other hand, thinking about it more thoroughly I would say, yes, it does make sence. Why would you work with a company which products you dislike? If they would say you can only drink Pepsi and no other fluids I would say that is ridiculous, but we are only talking about competitor products so I think that is quite fair.
Also, employees get discounts lots of the time so it is also an appealing offer for the employee. I know I wouldn't want to work anywhere where I wouldn't feel loyal to the product or the service, you will enjoy your work less and be less motivated if you don't have love for the product or service.
@faith210 (11224)
• Philippines
16 Feb 09
Hi ronnyb! I do understand the company's reason for banning its competitor's product in the workplace. I believe that the company you're working with is the one who is providing you a decent livelihood and it is just right that as a worker in that company, one should be loyal to the products they are producing. The employee or worker should patronize its own and show loyalty in his/her company; otherwise if the workers won't believe in the products his/her company is producing then why should the market believe in it too? I guess, to make a strong standpoint in marketing strategy, the company's workers should be the first to patronize their own products. Just my thoughts.
take care and have a great day!
lovelots..faith
@ANTIQUELADY (36440)
• United States
15 Feb 09
personally, i wouldn't appreciate it if i was a company. i think that would be tacky to do. anybody that does must not appreciate their job like they should.
@fluffysue (1482)
• United States
16 Feb 09
I guess it makes sense in a way. How much faith does it show in your company if you are using someone else's products instead? On the other hand, especially the way people switch jobs these days, it can be difficult to just switch products you use/consume based on your job. A few people used the example of working at an auto company but driving a different company's car. Well, I have a Ford, but if I get a job at GM tomorrow (not that that's likely), I can't go run out and buy a GM car. But I suppose I can see for example, Coke not allowing Pepsi in the workplace, or vice versa.
