The legislature of Tennessee cannot outlaw unions in Tennessee in private sector companies. So what the political leaders here have done is too things:

1. Make an argument to try to get workers to vote no (which we now know was successful), because if more unions are formed at companies in Tennessee, fewer businesses will locate there, because labor costs are usually higher in unionized companies than non-union.

2. Make a threat against the company that if the company's workers unionized, the state would no longer extend tax benefits (really tax reductions) to the company if it wished to expand in the state.

Which is good, that's what makes it a good exercise. In the real world, people who make decisions in business and family life very rarely have a choice between A which is all positive and B which is all negative. They have many choices like this, 1 through 4, all of which have possible good and possible bad. So when you say, in your fifth paragraph, "it's better to communicate with both union and ..." the truth is, it's too late for that. This is not a negotiation, it is a vote that is going to be taken by one party (workers) where a second party (management) has officially taken no stand but where that party actually sort of maybe kind of wants the workers to vote yes, because that is how the company is comfortable working in Germany, while a third party (some government leaders) are threatening the company that if the workers vote yes, the leaders will do all it can to make the company's life in that state more difficult.

What I see in your essay is a lot of trying to get around the central problem, but you can't. You must actually take a stand. I understand that you were raised and educated in a culture that mixes "consensus" and "hierarchy" (a King and a business model that seeks harmony rather than conflict). The global business world works in a way that seeks out "conflict" of ideas and puts them to a vote, and where many different parties have a "vote." So while your thoughts may be "right" in terms of harmonic human relations, unfortunately they don't come to grips with the need to make a strategic corporate decision based on some framework of ethical thinking.

You have sometimes used complex sentence construction (i.e., paragraph 3: "It is better to turn workers themselves in the culture for success by which they contact with the political culture which helps them in their life") as a way to avoid coming to grips with the question. I'm not sure I understand grammatically this sentence, but I think you might be saying that the workers have to understand how to best balance business success with political harmony. And maybe that's true. If it is, my sense is that the workers have voted for political harmony over business success, since Volkswagen is most successful when there are worker councils and, under US labor law, worker councils can only exist when there is a union to provide protection and keep the councils from being an instrument of management intimidation.

Now think about what it must be like for a CEO of a company with operations in Germany, Singapore, the U.S., Mexico, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. etc. etc. Welcome to the world of international business.

I hope this hasn't been too boring. In short, you need to be more direct in how you say what you think should be done. And, at the end of the discussion, you have to choose one of the four possible recommendations I've outlined.