From the company's perspective, a VEBA involves a short term cost – the money it sets aside to fund the VEBA – but it lowers the company's future costs and thus increases the odds that it can make money in a global market with intense price competition and high product development costs.

For companies with similar challenges, the VEBA could be a good solution.

Are VEBAs good for the workers/retirees?

VEBAs are good for workers and retirees as long as the union can manage its money well enough to make up for the gap. Last time I checked, the health care trust GM established would pay about 70% of GM's $51 billion pension obligation, or $36 billion, into a VEBA. The UAW would manage the VEBA for 340,000 GM hourly retirees and spouses. If the VEBA's investments appreciate enough in value, those 340,000 pensioners will have their pension obligations satisfied. If not, it will be the UAW's fault.

To reach $51 billion in, say, five years, the VEBA will need to achieve a 7.2% annual rate of return. If the UAW can meet or exceed that target, I'd say that workers and retirees would be better off under a VEBA.

Chrysler's deal was not quite as good. Chrysler's contract would contribute about 55% to 60% of its liabilities, a figure estimated at between $10 billion and $11 billion. Cerberus Capital Management -- which bought Chrysler from Daimler, formerly DaimlerChrysler pushed hard in negotiations for better terms for the VEBA. In addition, Chrysler reportedly won health care concessions granted to Ford and GM in 2005 that are valued at about $340 million annually for the automaker

Are VEBAs good for the companies?

The VEBA can be good for companies. GM thought the VEBA enabled it to boost its competitiveness - giving it more flexibility to hire new workers at lower costs - helping to reduce what GM claimed is a $25-per-hour labor cost disparity with its Japanese competitors. And its stock rose 8% on news of the deal which suggests that investors like VEBA-based deals as well.

Is there a trend here?

The standard definition of a trend requires three cases – so we won't know for sure until another automaker follows the VEBA pattern. Ford's financial condition is direr than that of GM or Chrysler's. But if Ford follows the VEBA approach, it would be a trend. The UAW views the deals with GM and Chrysler as "pattern bargaining" which to me implies that it expects Ford to agree on a similar deal. If Ford sees things the way the UAW does, it's reasonable to assume a trend is emerging.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.