Employment contracts that are reduced to a single explicit written agreement are relatively rare in the US, most employment contracts are implied by conduct.
A lot of people think of "contract" as specifically a written document, but that's not what a "contract" is in law, the written document (if it exists) can be very powerful evidence that (1) there is a contract, and (2) what its terms are, but contracts exist without them.
While US employment is usually at will without a defined contract term, there are mutually enforceable obligations, including some definition of what the employee is obligated to do for the employer and that the employer is obligated to pay the employee at some specified rate assuming the employee's obligations are met. That's a contract. Exactly what the detailed terms are may be difficult to prove absent a single comprehensive written document, but it is a contract.
That being said, "employment contract" colloquially connotes more than "agreement to trade labor for X salary." It implies something other than at-will employment, for one thing.
They do print the terms on paper. Usually, companies that don’t have a formal contract that both the employee and employer sign will still write down all the important information. First the employer sends an offer letter containing important information unique to the new employee, such as job title, compensation, work location, start date, etc. Then everything else is in some kind of employee handbook. The handbook details the expectations for every job title, the rules employees are expected to follow, rules for promotions and transfers, etc, etc. Together these have everything you would expect in a contract that both the employee and employer sign, and they are just as binding.
It’s not really rare, plenty of companies in the US use employment contracts. But a majority don’t, not in the European sense. Technically there is always a contract between any two parties who are cooperating; it doesn’t have to be formalized in any particular way as long as the cooperating parties have a common understanding of the terms and agree on them.
Many companies that don’t use formal contracts instead put all the information that is common to all employees into an employee handbook, and the details that are unique to a specific employee into the offer letter. The offer letter given to a new hire has details such as their starting salary and start date, and once they arrive they are given a copy of the handbook and often time to read it and discuss it with a manager. The handbook will explain in detail how promotions happen, the work expected from for various job titles, any rules the employees are expected to follow, etc, etc. Together these form the common understanding that underlies the contract, even if there is never a formal contract signed by both the employer and the employee.
Contractors, on the other hand, always have a formal contract. Often a contractor spends a significant amount of their time negotiating these contracts, especially the scope of work. I should know, I worked as a contractor for many years.
For established companies, I've always had a written employment agreement which discussed some terms common to all employees, including anti-moonlighting, usually ip assignment, etc. But I don't think I've ever had a contract that described what I going to do... maybe when I worked for a school district, but there my position title didn't actually match the work anyway; the position title was about being a tech helper in the classroom, but my position was at the district office with field work that only rarely had interaction with students.
I thought it was pretty well understood that the purpose of these companies is to overhire overqualified people simply to keep them busy doing things that are just enjoyable enough, with great perks, that they won't consider leaving the megacorp and focusing their talents to create viable startups that are a genuine threat to the monopoly.
It's not a myth. Executives just don't do as much as you think and the numbers don't need to make economic sense when you have a bottomless VC fund to pull from.
I alluded to it above, but I'll say it again here: the only reason the K.O.G. was successful was because he controlled one of the largest budgets in the DoD and people were lining up to kiss his ass to get a piece of that pie regardless of his behavior.
I think you’re right, but also wrong at the same time.
I haven’t read as much as I should have on him, but from the stuff live gleaned, his personality didn’t change once he got into that position of a large budget. Sure, his persona and leadership style evolved along with him, but it was always there. It’s what got him to be what we know today.
>Rickover's methods wouldn't work anywhere outside of the Navy during the Cold War because even there they were considered draconian and extreme (and generally nutty)
What people forget is that Rickover controlled one of the largest budgets in the DoD, so there were people lining up to kiss his ass just to get a piece of that pie regardless of his behavior.
