This is a private company for starters. The UAW jobs bank idea was forced by a union not management and was simply a move to make sure no one was fired even when it was cost effective to do so. They were paid between 85-100% salary too, not 33%.
In this case they want to trim costs a bit but also want to retain the employees. This will save money, not tank the company and require billions in Federal emergency loans.
Suppose UAW workers fail to show up to work, and the CEO fires them and hires replacements. In that case, men with guns show up and shut down GM (it's illegal to fire striking workers and hire replacements).
Also, if negotiations break down, men with guns may show up and broker an agreement (mandatory arbitration).
Unions, as they currently exist, are based very strongly on using threats of force against non-union workers and employers.
The CEO of GM did, in fact, have virtually no choice in the matter.
Suppose UAW workers fail to show up to work, and the CEO fires them and hires replacements. In that case, men with guns show up and shut down GM (it's illegal to fire striking workers and hire replacements).
This is simply not true, at least in the USA. See for example:
The workers are "threatening to shut down your entire operation" by refusing to work for you on the terms that you would prefer. That's negotiation, not violence.
As someone upthread pointed out, the CEO was free to do just that (or at least, would have become free to do it as soon as the pre-existing contract ran out).
In this case they want to trim costs a bit but also want to retain the employees. This will save money, not tank the company and require billions in Federal emergency loans.