I don't think tactics are relevant. Management had a choice at each negotiation:
1. Stand Firm and accept a strike.
2. Cave, agree to something clearly not viable and let someone deal with the problem in the future.
Option 1 doesn't make management look too great -- the were likely concerned for their jobs. This is why they took option 2 with the hope that the 'future someone' would be the government.
Let's keep in mind that the automakers are not profitable and have not been for some time. Long term, shutting down is generally preferable to operating at a loss.
As publicly traded companies, the management is beholden to the stock holders and are (in essence) required to act in the manner that most increases stock value. Wall Street is notoriously short sighted and will ALWAYS prefer short-term moves over long-term moves. Therefore, accepting a strike for the greater/future good would have only decreased the stock value and resulted in a massive management turnover.
BTW, while I worked in Ford Systems, my wife worked in Ford Finance. I'm pretty familiar with most of the inner workings at Ford and can tell you that your assumptions about the available options are not very accurate, although I can understand why you might think that way.
I'm not sure about your statement of profitability. Ford had a profitable Q1 this year, and it's last full profitable year was as recently as 2005 (just under 3 years ago). "Profitable" can be very open to interpretation, although they have been losing marketshare for quite a while, they have not been unprofitable for a significant amount of time when you look at the bigger picture. Not sure about GM or Chrysler.
I don't think Ford was "Profitable" in 2005. To be profitable you need to reduce you income by all liabilities you are adding in the future such as pension and heath care. They have been cooking to books for so long it looks like they only recently got into trouble, but an under funded pension is just as much debt as any other loan even if it takes a while to come due.
Well, according to their SEC filings they were profitable in 2005. You can argue the point ad nauseum if you like, when they move billions of dollars in cash there can be a lot of room for interpretation at times.
1. Stand Firm and accept a strike.
2. Cave, agree to something clearly not viable and let someone deal with the problem in the future.
Option 1 doesn't make management look too great -- the were likely concerned for their jobs. This is why they took option 2 with the hope that the 'future someone' would be the government.
Let's keep in mind that the automakers are not profitable and have not been for some time. Long term, shutting down is generally preferable to operating at a loss.