Significant concessions were demanded from the banks - and most importantly, labor costs are not a significant component of bank operations in the way they are for car manufacturers. The problem in the financial industry is not that their products are uncompetitive with more efficiently produced rivals.
Looking at your comparison in relative terms:While there is some differences in the cost of health care, where the real difference in wages is from the legacy pension payments. Considering that the US auto industry has been around for 100 years, of course there are going to be greater cost associated with retirement. Below is a list from the Auto Channel about the real payroll costs. As you can see, there isn't much difference in the current average hourly labor cost of UAW workers employed at Ford and those employed by non-U.S. based automakers with plants in the United States.
WAGES: (more than 10% higher than non-union)
WAGE RELATED: (more than 50% higher than non-union)
There's more to it than just the directly inflated wages, like enforcing archaic working practices and bizarre demarkation rules which impede efficiency without showing up directly in hourly costs.Comparing the wages this way it looks like labor is being made the scapegoat once again.
No, eliminating the extra cost burden imposed by the UAW wouldn't eliminate all the Big Three's problems, but it would certainly make a significant difference; even from your figures, I doubt it's possible to render them viable while this discrimination remains.
Think about it: draw up a list of the traits which distinguish the Big Three from the other car manufacturers also operating within the US which manage to avoid these problems. You can't honestly say the UAW and its effects don't form a big part of that list, can you?