One of the reasons the US automakers have such structural financial problems is that they are on the wrong side of the dependency ratio which is the number of workers vs. the amount of retirement commitments.
The actual cost for the workers actually making a car in a US plant is reasonably competitive with similar foreign manufacturer's US plants.
The difference is that US auto makers have a dependency overhang for all the ex-employees receiving pensions, healthcare, etc, whereas the majority of the foreign owned plants haven't been in operation long enough to have 20 year employees retiring. (And even if they did, their US business model, developed in a very different era (Reagan and beyond,) doesn't include the same level of retirement commitments.)
(This is why you see such huge gaps when different sides cite the "labor cost" of making a US vehicle. Are they counting the workers currently on the line or dividing the total HR payout by the total number of cars.)
The real horror is that as these firms continue to shrink their workforces, that dependency ratio, the number of active workers supporting the retirement commitments, gets increasingly worse.
And, no, I don't see an answer until many of those retirees pass away, and workers under the newer contracts pass into retirement.
(Maybe you could argue a single payer health system would allow Ford/GM to take their retiree health costs off their books.)