by Mike Masnick
Wed, Aug 12th 2009 10:22pm
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.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Lawsuit Filed After Export-Import Bank Official Swears He 'Accidentally' Deleted All Of His Responsive Text Messages
- Chicago Area Sheriff Who Wasted Taxpayer Money Suing Craigslist, Now Strong-Arms Payment Companies To Avoid Backpage
- Court Tells City: No, You Cannot Sue Someone For Making A FOIA Request
- Judge Orders Lying, Cheating Government To Return $167,000 To The Man They Stole It From
- VW Will Block BlackBerry Email When People Are Off Work. Isn't That When It's Most Useful?