We've had many discussions around here about the changing nature of the work-life balance -- especially with laptops, wireless connections and (most importantly) mobile devices, the "work" part is creeping more and more into the "life" part. That's partly why we think companies should be a lot more understanding about when the "life" part creeps into the "work" part (meaning no longer freaking out if someone happens to buy something online or visit a social network while they're "working"). But, it's also raising questions in the other direction as well. Specifically, employees who are "hourly" workers are pursuing a few lawsuits
over the fact that they don't get paid for responding to emails via their mobile devices during "off hours." This again raises a question about whether "hourly" workers really make sense in many jobs these days. It would seem that a far more effective measure of work should be whether or not you get the work you need to get done, done -- rather than how many hours you worked. There certainly may be some cases where hourly workers make sense, but in many situations where it's commonly used today, it's difficult to see why hourly wages are still the norm, over a full salary.