>>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.
>

Some of Toyota's U.S. plants are unionized as well but the wages and work rules are nothing compared to the old style contracts.

One of the worst long term decisions the U.S. auto industry made was decades ago when they were still fat and happy. UAW leader Walter Reuther was in favor of a somewhat socialistic agreement in which autoworkers would belong to a union with the entire industry rather than individual companies. If you left a company to work for another in the industry your benefits went with you. The idea was companies might go up or down but long term the INDUSTRY was a safe bet. Sort of the same concept as indexed mutual funds. The companies would not agree. They would be a lot better off if they had. When hard times came, as they almost inevitably do in any industry, they were boxed in because their now underdeployed workforce stayed on to avoid losing accrued benefits. Result? Expensive buyouts and an active workforce that is increasingly saddled by payments to retirees. I don't remember the exact numbers but the ratio of active workers to retired workers still receiving benefits from the Big Three is about half that of their new competitors. It doesn't make it any easier to get the job done when you're carrying someone on your back.