"That's a simplistic view. What if the 'whole point' was avoiding project-unraveling team turnover, and deterring a corrosive culture of mercenary focus on salary rather than intangible or equity compensation?"
The easy (and legal!) way to do this is to get people under contract. Executive teams do this among themselves all the time, so it's not as though they're unfamiliar wit the principle or the practice. Sports teams do it too, as do a lot of creative fields where the particular people involved make all the difference.
The obvious downside (from the perspective of the suits) is that they end up paying more for talent than otherwise would. Every dollar going to the staff is a dollar that isn't available to the executive team. It's a zero sum game, and the guys on top were playing dirty to get what they'd never be able to get if they kept it clean.
It's not easy at all to enter into a contract with a large number of employees. Nobody wants to do things that way, including the employees. Individual contract negotiations happen only on a small scale; as you stated, typically only for executives or sports teams, which may total <= 30 individuals.
I've personally tried to negotiate a contract in an at-will employment state with a company when I accepted a directorship there. They refused to budge on it. It was at-will or nothing, and their excuse was "We've only ever heard of that kind of thing for C-levels". I would've been giving up a lot of flexibility too, and most employees wouldn't be ready for that or willing to do it.
>Every dollar going to the staff is a dollar that isn't available to the executive team.
That's not how corporate structure works, especially corporate structure in a progressive startup like Pixar used to be. Yes, there are performance bonuses for executives, but there are also profit sharing bonuses and stock options for rank-and-file employees, which creates an interest in the company's welfare beyond the universal "I don't want to lose my job". It's silly to act like there's a direct inverse correlation between dollars spent on wages and dollars forwarded to executives' personal bank accounts.
At this point I'm convinced this thread is just an anti-capitalist, anti-business crusade by misguided justice warriors. Pretty disappointing for a platform that's supposed to be intended for entrepreneurs.
"Nobody wants to do things that way, including the employees."
Well, nobody except yourself, of course.
Like you said a moment later, "I've personally tried to negotiate a contract in an at-will employment state with a company when I accepted a directorship there."
I don't know about you, but if I typed something that flatly contradicted a statement I'd made not two lines prior I'd think twice about hitting "publish". As the old saw says, 'It's better to say nothing and be though a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt'.
And as it turns out, there are lots of people who recognize the unwelcome risk built into an agreement that allows their employment to be terminated with or without notice, with or without cause, at any time, and without any compensation. (That's the definition of "at-will" for those of you unfamiliar with the precise legal construction.)
Typically, this is far more beneficial to employers than it is to employees and it shouldn't be hard to figure out why. Indeed, most people's reasons for wanting a contract are probably similar to your own reasons for doing precisely what you did. So before you embarrass yourself any further, take a moment and just...think.
I can tell you that my case was atypical. Most people do want at-will employment. They don't want a contract. I usually want at-will employment, and as it turned out, the contract I proposed would've ultimately come back to bite me if it had been implemented. I'm currently employed and I don't want a contract with my current employer (unless my role was completely changed). Again, we don't need to jump right into "business people are evil moustache-twirlers" every time employee-employer relations come up. At-will employment was put in place for Good Reasons, and there are employees (like myself!) who usually want it.
I've done a reasonable amount of interviewing and hiring in my time, and I never had a candidate propose a long-term contract. I know some of the people I hired would probably think it sounds good at the outset, but they would be quite upset when the employer doesn't do the "polite" thing and let them out of their contracts whenever they want to go somewhere else. They would then come on HN and try to name and shame this company that hates its employees and resents their professional development, and is keeping developers in iron shackles while they have to pass up opportunities to make way more money! Then a bunch of social justice warriors will call the corporate heads monsters, claim their actions violate obscure elements of obscure laws, burn effigies, etc.
Others are like me and almost always want the freedom to leave when things start to go awry. There's no need to stay aboard a sinking ship any longer than necessary.
Almost nobody really wants employment-by-contract.
The easy (and legal!) way to do this is to get people under contract. Executive teams do this among themselves all the time, so it's not as though they're unfamiliar wit the principle or the practice. Sports teams do it too, as do a lot of creative fields where the particular people involved make all the difference.
The obvious downside (from the perspective of the suits) is that they end up paying more for talent than otherwise would. Every dollar going to the staff is a dollar that isn't available to the executive team. It's a zero sum game, and the guys on top were playing dirty to get what they'd never be able to get if they kept it clean.