[eropple]

> I didn't want to get candidates purely motivated by the high cash comp in the area.

This is an extreme red flag for me. While your motives may be better, as I don't know you and won't assume, I've never met a potential employer who said that who wasn't trying to run a cult. I contend that there is no "employee friendly" company (outside of cooperatives, which don't really exist in tech) and that company culture is generally used to exert pressure to make people overwork themselves for somebody else's gain.

The best people, as well as best developers, I've ever worked with are nearly fully coin-operated (with obvious carve-outs for "not working for terrible people," etc.). They do excellent work, expect to be paid well for it, and go home.

If they "play hard," it's not with their co-workers.

[irremediable]

Despite agreeing a lot with your sentiments, I don't exactly agree with what you said. Agreed that fair compensation is crucial. Agreed that sensible hours are important. Agreed that too many places fail to give these to their employees.

However, I've known lots of companies who offer good compensation and good work-life balance, but still think it's important to be "employee-friendly". Again, agreed that there can be conflicts of interest, especially in a non-cooperative model. But still, happy employees tend to be more useful employees. It can be useful to hire people whose motivation isn't solely limited to the compensation.

[bjelkeman-again]

Beyond the cooperatives you can also run non-profit organisations with a business model. They can be without any owners, so you are not working for someone else's gain in the same way you do for a company. We have that where I work.

[eropple]

Yeah, I can see that model working. Checking out your site, your company sounds interesting and I'd love to learn more. Want to drop me an email? It's in my profile. =)

[kevin_thibedeau]

You should read up on how the Clif bar company is run. Pro employee businesses do exist.