I don't mean that management is good, but management themselves have to manage the companies existing obligations and situation. I don't think management has done a good job, but I think a the majority of the issue is that there is nothing they can do. They are hemmed in from one side with unions and labor issues, including the political pressures involved... and then are hemmed in on the other side, with debt and financial obligations.
It's what happens when the overpaying of labor and the buyout of unions in the past with benefits catches up to a company. In a strange way, it reflects the government social security situation too.
One of the reasons I disagree is because the US companies have highly efficient plants as measured by production (high employment costs do that). It's the companies, as a whole, that are falling apart. They produce domestic cars for domestic services using domestic labor with domestic designs. Highly inefficient, not diversified and not competitive.That fact alone makes it a management issue. Its either that, or workers in the south (North Carolina, Alabama, etc... have these Toyota, BMW, etc... plants) are better than workers in Detroit. I'd go for the former hypothesis.
Lots of factories are closing or idling right now including Asian or European parent companies. But the failure of the US big three seems systemic to the US parent companies (including their management styles). It could be explain by various moral hazards (been protected too long), but I think it's a cycle.
Essentially, the political body wants votes, and so they "pay off" labor to get them. That makes the big three a non-company, for a lack of better words, simply because they can't do what they need to do as easily. This also applies historically - the benefits being covered by government/etc - which has made them financially burdened during globalisation. And so they get protected, which increases their dependence on government/etc. and the cycle goes on.