Purchasing a product made by your company's competitor

[hammertime]

This may seem like a stupid question, but is there any way a company can legally forbid or penalize its employees from purchasing products made by one of its competitor? For example, if I were to work at Panasonic, could they not allow to buy a PlayStation 3 even Panasonic doesn't make a video game console? If I were to work at Microsoft, could they not let me buy a Wii? Could, say, Dell keep me from buying an HP?

 

[Pengwuino]

As far as I know, at least in the US, you can't be forbidden to purchase anything due to your employment unless it's in a contract (say, Tiger Woods possibly not being able to use non-Nike golf equipment... then again I think even that is just at Tours). Even then, he can purchase anything he wants, he just has to use Nike during tournaments.

 

[Hessami]

Yeah as far as I know that wouldn't be allowed generally.

Out of curiosity, is there any reason for the question?

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you work at an assembly line for Ford, you probably don't want to be driving to work in a brand new Toyota.

Not unless you have some real good insurance.

 

[hammertime]

Yeah as far as I know that wouldn't be allowed generally.

Out of curiosity, is there any reason for the question?

Can you clarify what you mean by "that wouldn't be allowed"? So you're saying that, if I work for Panasonic, Panasonic can't bar me from buying a PlayStation 3?

 

[Hessami]

Can you clarify what you mean by "that wouldn't be allowed"? So you're saying that, if I work for Panasonic, Panasonic can't bar me from buying a PlayStation 3?

Well, I guess it depends on the law in your area, but where I'm from (Australia), I'm pretty sure most uncompetitive practices like that are forbidden by legislation.

I'd assume it would fit in somewhere alongside "vendor lock in" and such, but I couldn't point you to the exact piece of legislation. If anything it would fall under some general category of unconscionable conduct.

In layman's terms, it's dodgy, and I doubt any large corporation would get away with it without some serious weaselling. :P

If you work at an assembly line for Ford, you probably don't want to be driving to work in a brand new Toyota.
Not unless you have some real good insurance.

Haha! you make a very good point! :P

 

[twofish-quant]

This may seem like a stupid question, but is there any way a company can legally forbid or penalize its employees from purchasing products made by one of its competitor?

In the USA, most employment is at will and as long as it isn't illegal, the company can force you to do pretty much anything as a condition of employment. If the company has a rule that says that you must show up to work wearing a chicken suit or be fired, they can.

However, most companies don't have these sorts of rules because it just annoys people. In fact, at some companies that I've known, employees are *encouraged* to purchase products made by competitors so that they know what their competitors are up to.

 

[Chi Meson]

This may seem like a stupid question, but is there any way a company can legally forbid or penalize its employees from purchasing products made by one of its competitor? For example, if I were to work at Panasonic, could they not allow to buy a PlayStation 3 even Panasonic doesn't make a video game console? If I were to work at Microsoft, could they not let me buy a Wii? Could, say, Dell keep me from buying an HP?

As has been mentioned, any such rule would be specifically stated in a contract of employment, and I cannot imagine that prohibition from buying a competitor's product is ever done. Especially if your company doesn't even make the product. A rule like that can never be assumed to be in place without prior agreement.

You know that there must be many employees of Microsoft that own Macs. First of all, they make software for the Mac, and second of all, where else would MS get any of their "ideas"?

Usually companies encourage their own product by making them very cheap or even free to their employees

 

[BobG]

This may seem like a stupid question, but is there any way a company can legally forbid or penalize its employees from purchasing products made by one of its competitor? For example, if I were to work at Panasonic, could they not allow to buy a PlayStation 3 even Panasonic doesn't make a video game console? If I were to work at Microsoft, could they not let me buy a Wii? Could, say, Dell keep me from buying an HP?

They can't bar you from using a competitor's product for personal use. They require there to be a clear split between your personal use and your professional duties (in other words, you have to use employer approved equipment at work). This goes to personal opinions, as well as competitor's products (i.e. - you can't be penalized for writing a letter to the editor critizing your employer's products, but can be penalized for writing that letter and identifying yourself as an employee of the company).

That's why many companies provide employee discounts. They make their own products cheap enough to their employees that they will choose to use that company's products. The effect is probably more applicable to things like cars, tires, etc. It looks bad if the Ford plant's employee parking lot is filled with Toyotas; if all the cars in the Firestone plant have Goodyear tires, etc.

Clothing stores are good for that, as well. They can't afford to provide employees with a wardrobe, so they give good discounts so the employees wear clothes that the store sells.

At one time, I had a job cleaning the bagging machines for a locally owned potato chip company. The owner used to walk through the lunch area and grill the employees. If they were eating the company's brand of potato chips, he'd ask them if they stole them from the warehouse. If they were eating a competitor's chips, he'd ask them why they had no company loyalty. Real jerk about those chips - funny thing is that he was a pretty good guy on all other issues.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Unless you tell them, how are they going to know what products you purchase?

I suppose that if you work at Los Alamos, they won't let you buy nuclear weapons from their competitors.

 

[Sorry!]

Usually companies encourage their own product by making them very cheap or even free to their employees

That's what I was going to say. They can't make it 'illegal' or attempt to stop you from purchasing anything in your free time... They can stop you from using certain products or bringing them with you to work on the clock but when your not on the clock there's nothing they can do to you really... at least here in Canada.

Most companies promote their own product to their employees at reallllllly great prices so it would only make sense for most of the employees to have their product. Like for clothing companies some places give upwards of 60% off... restaurants you get free food sometimes or 50% off...

 

[Moonbear]

If you work at an assembly line for Ford, you probably don't want to be driving to work in a brand new Toyota.

You can, but you won't be allowed to park it in the large employee lot in front of the plant. You'll be assigned to park in a remote lot that isn't visibly associated with the plant.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You can, but you won't be allowed to park it in the large employee lot in front of the plant. You'll be assigned to park in a remote lot that isn't visibly associated with the plant.

That sounds like a long way to walk...with two busted kneecaps.

 

[Sorry!]

That sounds like a long way to walk...with two busted kneecaps.

Not to mention the guard dogs they forgot to put back in the kenels...

 

[Monique]

Steve Ballmer once reluctantly said that his children are allowed to buy Apple products with their own money, they just wouldn't be allowed to enter his house with them

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In the USA, most employment is at will and as long as it isn't illegal, the company can force you to do pretty much anything as a condition of employment. If the company has a rule that says that you must show up to work wearing a chicken suit or be fired, they can.

However, most companies don't have these sorts of rules because it just annoys people. In fact, at some companies that I've known, employees are *encouraged* to purchase products made by competitors so that they know what their competitors are up to.

There are very few things that a company can make conditions on when you are outside of work and they have to prove that it adversely effects the company or your ability to preform your job. Owning a playstation 3 is not going to adversely effect panasonic or your ability to preform your job unless maybe you stay up all night every night playing video games or something. Theoretically if you were dressed in a fashion that made it plain to everyone you are a panasonic employee while shopping for Sony products they may be able to do something about that.

 

[whitay]

Steve Ballmer once reluctantly said that his children are allowed to buy Apple products with their own money, they just wouldn't be allowed to enter his house with them

What about if it was a Macbook with Windows Installed?

 

[Borek]

Steve Ballmer once reluctantly said that his children are allowed to buy Apple products with their own money, they just wouldn't be allowed to enter his house with them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

 

[Pengwuino]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

...

*uninstalls Windows*.

 

[ibnsos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

I thought he was going to start bringing people on stage and healing them.

 

[brewnog]

A lot of companies actually encourage this kind of thing, it's a great benchmarking opportunity.

 

[Monique]

That's what power can do to people, I'm glad he's having such a good time on stage

 

[Borek]

That's what power can do to people, I'm glad he's having such a good time on stage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE

 

[Monique]

He's on drugs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin"

 

[Moonbear]

That's what power can do to people, I'm glad he's having such a good time on stage

Though, it's probably that high energy that got him into a position of power, rather than the power creating that energy. He's probably always been one of those annoying people who shows up cheerful and bouncing off walls while everyone else in the office is still clinging to coffee cups to get moving. If I had to work with someone like that all day, I'd recommend him for promotion too...just to get him out of my office and into someone else's.

 

[Hessami]

Actually, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there's a Ford (or Holden?) building near where I live that used to have all BMWs and mercedes parked out the front in the staff carpark

Though I doubt that those cars are still there in the current climate :P

 

[hammertime]

So I MAY (slim chance, but it's possible) end up getting a job at Microsoft's hardware division, and I may therefore end up working for XBox. If that were to happen, would MS legally be allowed to keep me from owning a PS3?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So I MAY (slim chance, but it's possible) end up getting a job at Microsoft's hardware division, and I may therefore end up working for XBox. If that were to happen, would MS legally be allowed to keep me from owning a PS3?

No. If you were in a store buying a PS3 and were recognizable as a MS employee they could theoretically claim that you were poorly representing the company. If you were at say an E3 expo playing ps3 games and talking about your ps3 and telling everyone you are an MS employee they could theoretically say that you were poorly representing the company. If you got on PSN and used the handle "MicroSoftFlunky" again the same. It all has to do with whether or not they could reasonably say you were somehow hurting the company by your actions which could be something even as simple as being identifiable as a MS employee while doing something favourable for the competition. Even my examples (save perhaps for the E3 one) may not hold up in court though you need to take into account that they need not take you to court to fire you, and you would have to take them to court after they fire you.

So if you just buy a PS3, no one knows you are an employee of MS, and you take it home and use it like any other average joe there is nothing they can say about it, legally. Of course they may try to make you think that you are not allowed to own a PS3 or purchase their products and may even try to fire you if they find out but they can not do this legally and I would consider it highly unlikely that they would even try. So all you have to avoid really is identifying yourself as an MS employee while favouring their competition and you should be fine. Not telling people at work how awesome Uncharted 2 is would probably be a good idea too. ;-)

edit: on a side note you may want to really consider your purchase of a ps3. If you know people who have ps3s then it may work out fine. Personally none of my friends own one or even an xbox for that matter, though they would be more likely to buy an xbox than a ps3, and I have been running into the problem of finding games that I can play with friends at home. LOTS of games have multiplayer options but due to the emphasis on online gaming with the next gen consoles very few of them offer local multiplayer support, many of the ones I wish had local multiplayer do not, and most of the ones that do have the option are only for up to two players. And very very few allow for local/splitscreen multiplayer online. The only I know of for sure is Resistance 2 (only for two players) and it requires that the second player have a PSN account as well. I am not sure but I think that some of the online-play-only games such as Warhawk may support up to four players for online splitscreen.
Also many of the games ported to ps3 that were already released for xbox are reported to be really buggy.

Other than those two issues the ps3 is a rather good console. Of course it may not matter to you if you already have or intend to get an xbox.

Uncharted 2 is definitely awesome. I played it and then bought the first one. The first is not quite as good, though still a nice game, so I would suggest playing one first and then two. InFamous is great if you like superhero games. And I am playing Resistance: Fall of Man with a friend of mine right now. Its good if you like FPSs and the story line isn't bad. I only like FPSs for play with friends so I find it sort of mediocre otherwise. Part two is supposed to be even better though. Those are the only exclusives I own so far. I am reluctant to buy Little Big World but hear its great. I am also sort of curious about Heavy Rain.

Anyway I have blathered enough.

 

[mikelepore]

Most of the people who already answered above answered incorrectly. One person who gave a correct answer was:

In the USA, most employment is at will and as long as it isn't illegal, the company can force you to do pretty much anything as a condition of employment. If the company has a rule that says that you must show up to work wearing a chicken suit or be fired, they can.

If you live in a fire-at-will state, which most states are, the employer may NOT fire you for certain specific reasons (race, religion, national origin, handicap, etc.), but they may fire you for no apparent reason at all, or for any spontaneously invented reason.

Suppose the boss wanted to fire you for a disallowed reason, say, having discovered that you have a certain racial origin. The boss could get in trouble with the law for admitting to that. Therefore, the boss would say something like "I'm firing you because I didn't like the expression on your face" or "your tone of voice didn't seem respectful" or "you don't seem to smile often enough" or "on one day, a few years ago, your shirt seemed to be wrinkled." If the employee who gets fired wants to challenge it, the employee has the entire burden to prove that the real reason for the firing was something on the list of disallowed reasons, which would mean going into court and claiming to have the power to read other people's minds.

It's a common practice for companies to manipulate employee evaluations to produce excuses to fire people. These evaluations are usually written to be intangible and not measurable, such as "individual doesn't display enough creativity." I know of one employer who calls in the targeted worker and tells him or her "this is your new job description for the coming year: figure out some way to do twice the work in half the time", and then, when the worker can't do it, the worker is fired for refusal to follow one's job description.

A company can also use layoffs to get around the discrimination laws. A company that I'm familiar with wanted to get rid of much of its workforce due to the average age, and replace the workers with younger people. It would be illegal if they said that directly. So what they did, to have exactly the same effect, was announce a new rule that laid off workers may never be rehired, then announced a decision to shrink the business and laid off the workers, and then a few days after that they announced a decision to enlarge the business again and hired new college graduates.

So as for your question about can the company "keep me from owning", that depends on why you mean by "keep me from." They can't kidnap you, or put you in chains, or beat you up. What they can do is dismiss you from employment, for any reason, at any time.

Some people here will deny what I have said. If they deny it, then they don't have the amount of experience that I have with the organized labor movement and its struggles to establish workers' rights.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So as for your question about can the company "keep me from owning", that depends on why you mean by "keep me from." They can't kidnap you, or put you in chains, or beat you up. What they can do is dismiss you from employment, for any reason, at any time.

Some people here will deny what I have said. If they deny it, then they don't have the amount of experience that I have with the organized labor movement and its struggles to establish workers' rights.

You can not be fired for any reason at all even if you exclude general discrimination based on race, religion, ect. A prime example would be a firing based on refusal to have sexual relations with a superior (sexual harassment, fortunately for which there are specific laws). As you note earlier in your post employers will make a reason if they need to. The primary problem for workers is proving that they were fired on grounds that are illegal, and employers generally have a pretty good idea of what they can and can not get away with. Of course even if you could prove you were fired for unjust reasons it would not save you your job unless you are a government or union employee.

More examples:

You can not legally be fired for refusing an order that is plainly illegal.

You can not legally be fired for following the law.

You can not legally be fired for being a whistle blower.

You can not legally be fired based on information gathered in an illegal manner.

You can not legally be fired based on denial of legal employment rights such as FMLA, disability, ect.


In regards to the OPs question if MS were to restrict employees from purchasing products from competitors this could easily be construed as a sort of monopoly (and I think that they have enough issues with monopoly allegations as it is). It could also be seen as an illegal prying into the private life of an employee. As a blanket policy it would be a risky proposition and MS in particular would be a ripe target for litigation.