>>>>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?
>
>
>I doubt the kind of union contracts auto workers had in their heyday will ever come back.
>
>I don't quite follow your second paragraph. In what way did management have to succumb to union demands? And if a lockout ensued, whose choice was that?
>
>Don't call be a rah-rah union guy, because I'm not. They are far from without sin. But it's important to recognize that they came about for a reason. Unions were a response to management having too much power and using it too brutally. Before unions the general outlook was we'll pay you as little we choose and if you don't like it you can hit the road. Hopefully able to walk straight. The auto industry is one of the most notorious for sending out goon squads to club the snot out of anyone who even talked about unionizing.

My point was simple and logical, imho. If union demanded something and get it (by threatening strikes) how can be management blamed for that? Try to apply simple logics, without historical retrospective.