The movement and relocation of the employee is a ploy to weaken the bargaining power of the members who will be working collectively and it is not by means of getting a tax break. The coincidence between laying off and relocating the employees and the successful election of the members of union cast doubts on the claim that they after tax break. Therefore, this is a blindfold to drive their own selfish interest in their own favour. The threat of that presents itself with the position of the Union unity need strategies that will weaken them. This is the score that the employer wants to achieve by moving to Kentucky and laying off some of the employees.
2. The company’s defence that Schulz made the decision to move the company before the organizing campaign got started, was supported only by his own testimony believe Schulz would it change your opinion of defence? Why or why not?
2. The knowledge that Schulz gave the testimony on a support of relocating company. The defence will not change since the main talking point of the argument the timing of the relocating company to Kentucky. The decision was reached at precisely two months after the establishment of the Union body. The motive was a long-range oversight that was aimed to weaken the team of the union. For this reason, the defence cannot change because the reason and rationale for moving were with an affront to section 8(a) which transcends strengths of the testimonials. The plans of relocating to Kentucky is not only an affront to the rights of the rights of the employees but it is also done with malice as forethought. Wherefore, it can be argued that the decision and defence will maintain its stands even with the revelation of testimonial that was done at that time shortly after forming the union.
3. Kentucky, like Michigan, is not a right-to-work state, so union organizing in a plant in Kentucky is as likely as in Michigan. The company’s decision to move from Michigan seems to have been both complicated and expensive.nbsp.