>>>Agreed with everything you said, but GM/Ford made ALL those choices over time, Toyota (and other growing manufacturers) are more nimble, revamp their lineup more often, make higher quality cars, and make cars people want to drive!
>>
>>"Choices" was exactly the correct word, especially when it comes to union agreements and particularly the LONG-TERM benefits offered in them.
>>I heard a former CEO of American Motors say that when it came to union contracts the longer term stuff was disregarded because it was not to be their problem, but rather the problem of one of their successors. And these guys get paid big bucks!!!
>>
>>By the way, the Toyota plants here are unionized from what I can tell.
>>
>Plants could be unionized but union force (including retirees) is much younger. Toyota will get the same problems with 20 years delay.
>It is a bit hilarious to hear how you blame management that they had to succumb to union demands. Do you prefer lockout situation?

If management - paid the big bucks to protect shareholder investments - succumbed when they knew it would make the future bleak (just not for them personally) then they should have said no to any longer-term benefits, whether that meant continue the strike or locking people out. They simply didn't do their job properly.
What is hilarious about that, Ed?