1. The union argues that the company's efforts to borrow low interest bonds and to get tax breaks in order to build and operate in Michigan supports their position that the motivating factor in moving to Kentucky was antiunion animus. Do you agree?
2. The company's defense, that Schultz made the decision to move the Company before the organizing campaign got started, was supported only by his own testimony. If you were told that the hearing officer who conducted the hearing and heard the testimony believed Schultz, would it change your opinion of the defense? Why or why not?
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. Do you think that the company made such a decision mainly to avoid a unionized work force?