Well at the very least (and this is not a stretch) it indicates to me that a personality such as his combined with a weak GM management lead to the current disaster at GM. I would think that an astute investor would have determined this by studying (among other things) the leaders of the opposing forces.
Are/were the GM management 'weak', or were they just in a tough spot? If they didn't meet Union demands, the UAW would strike, and that is very, very hard on a capital & inventory intensive business.
And did that feed into their desire to push for the bigger, more profitable cars over smaller fuel eff ones? They actually made good money on these for a while, so maybe that *was* the smart thing to do (yet, just pushing out the inevitable).
Toyota/Honda had an advantage when they came in - they could offer jobs at a higher than local rate, but lower than UAW rate, and that would look attractive to those locals. If GM/F/C tried that, the UAW would strike in the existing plants.
I'm not defending management, they may be sub par - I don't know. Just trying to bring some perspective to the situation.
OK, some more perspective - a lot of us have been complaining that CEO pay is not aimed enough toward long term health of the company. Well, we have the same thing here with the UAW. No, I'm not surprised the guy is a tough negotiator, that's his job. But w/o some more direct tie into the companies long term health, you get what you got. They go for the golden egg.
-ERD50