Tom Keane

Charlie Baker, Richard Tisei face the Tea Party smear

Some parents get their children in line with scary warnings about monsters under the bed. Massachusetts Democrats tell voters similar tales about the Tea Party. The tactics work — as Richard Tisei and Charlie Baker may soon learn.

John Tierney, a US representative from the North Shore since 1997, barely won reelection in 2012. His challenger was Tisei, a longtime state legislator, gubernatorial candidate Baker’s running mate in 2010, and a man possessed with a novel pedigree: He’s an openly gay Republican. At the time, Tierney was still suffering through a scandal that had seen his wife sent to prison for 30 days (as well as house arrest for five months), and he was battling claims by his brother-in-law that he “knew everything that was going on” about the illegal doings. That combined with Tisei’s middle-of-the-road politics (the kind that in other states might make him a Democrat) seemed enough for victory. Then, out came the big gun: the Tea Party.

Tisei, Tierney argued, was a “Tea Party Republican,” pretending to be a centrist when he was really nothing more than a tool for the extremist elements of the national party. The moderate was painted as a fanatic, and Tisei ultimately lost narrowly, 48 to 47 percent.

Last week, Tisei announced he’ll mount a second challenge against Tierney. Not surprisingly, the Tea Party guns are out again. In the fall, as Tisei was mulling a run, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warned, “Tea Party Turns to Richard Tisei to Continue Reckless Mission.” A Jan. 9 e-mail from Tierney’s camp begged for donations to “Help keep Massachusetts’ 6th district out of Tea Party control.” Two weeks later, after Tisei had jumped in the race, came this admonishment: “We can’t let the Tea Party buy this seat for Richard Tisei.”

Baker, the presumptive Republican nominee for governor, will soon face similar claims. Baker is almost the anti-ideologue, a managerial whiz. He has a history of running complex organizations and making tough financial decisions, be it as secretary of administration and finance under Governors William Weld and Paul Cellucci or as the CEO who turned around Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. But he has stepped right into the Tea Party trap. Hoping to avoid an internecine battle for lieutenant governor, he named Karyn Polito his running mate. As a state representative from Shrewsbury, Polito was not especially conservative, but of late she had seemed to veer rightward, culminating in her appearance at a fall 2013 Tea Party fundraiser. That was enough for the state’s Democrats, who claimed Baker was “trying to appease the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party.”

All of this might not matter much except that Massachusetts has a problem: Too many Democrats and not enough Republicans.

Democrats utterly control the state’s politics. Our two US senators and nine House members are all Democrats. The governor is a Democrat. Out of 40 members, the state Senate has but four Republicans. The House , with 160 members, has just 28.

Good politics, runs the thinking, should be a competition. One party may be in the majority, but an effective opposition provides a necessary balance: It keeps the majority on its toes, it encourages creative thinking, and it’s a shield against corruption, sloth, and overreaching. But the GOP’s presence in the Bay State is so weak that it can do little. The solution, good-government types would argue, is to vote in more Republicans. And in truth, Tisei and Baker would seem exactly the kind of Republicans that might offer a healthy corrective to the Democratic hegemony.

Yet in the minds of many, Tea Party politics has become synonymous with a refusal to compromise and a willingness to take that to excess, such as a government shutdown. The state’s Democrats may well have too much influence, voters might conclude, but by any objective standard, Massachusetts’ politics are still more reasonable and effective than the dysfunction in Washington. Thus, if the Tea Party label sticks — and state Democrats will make a prodigious effort to see it does — Tisei and Baker lose. Even for adults, monsters under the bed still have the power to frighten.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Globe on January 28, 2014.

A job for a machine

In two years, 410 Massachusetts Turnpike workers are set to lose their jobs. But this isn’t an ordinary job loss, brought about by lousy economic circumstances or downsizing. Rather, the employees are all toll collectors. In 2016, the Pike will begin electronic collection of all tolls, meaning these workers are, in essence, being replaced by machines. The jobs will go away, never to return.

Drivers will be happy. Even those without an E-ZPass will be able to zip through tollbooths. High-speed cameras will take a picture of their license plates, and a few days later the bill will arrive in the mail. The state will be happy too: It’ll save about $50 million annually.

The workers — not so happy. Any job loss is an individual tragedy, upending lives and creating some degree of misery and angst. Sometimes the unemployment is brief; other times it can last years or, perhaps, a new job is never found at all.

Toll workers have always been the butt of jokes, perceived as politically connected hacks doing make-work jobs at too-high wages, and perhaps all that’s true. But don’t laugh too quickly. A recent report from Oxford University estimates that about 45 percent of all existing jobs in America will be lost over the next 20 years, almost all of them replaced by computers and robots. Those include administrative jobs in offices, logistics-related positions in transportation, and construction work. A specter is raised: Will half of us no longer have anything to do?

It’s a specter that has haunted much of human history. Workers digging holes with their hands doubtless wondered the same thing upon the appearance of the shovel. Sure, more holes could be dug in the same amount of time, but what about those the shovels replaced? Predictions of widespread idleness notwithstanding, the sum total of jobs did increase. So too did wealth. If one hole had been worth a clam, then workers with a shovel could now earn far more clams than when they dug by hand. Yes, some of that would go to buy the shovel, and maybe more would go to those who now designed and regulated the burgeoning number of holes but on average and over time, those workers were better off. Not only that, but the work itself was a little more dignified — one could stand rather than kneel while in the trenches.

So it’s been through the ages. All manner of technologies have done away with jobs but have correspondingly increased productivity, wealth, and the human condition. Printing presses wiped out scriveners, but also brought about mass communication and literacy (imagine, if you would, a world without “Fifty Shades of Grey”). Vacuum cleaners and dishwashers lessened the burden of housework, making unnecessary the maids and butlers we romanticize in “Downton Abbey.” Desktop computers made secretaries obsolete, allowing mostly female workers to move from the back office to the front.

There are downsides, particularly in terms of culture and lifestyle lost. The mechanization of agriculture, for example, has made uneconomic the much-sentimentalized family farm. Overall, however, a fair reading of technology is that it has been strongly beneficial to the human race, with advances in machines going hand-in-hand with increasing prosperity, equality, and opportunity.

Yet as technology has advanced, one very real change has occurred: Machines replace jobs that are largely unskilled or less skilled. The new jobs created require expertise the old did not, and the very real worry is that those being replaced themselves become obsolete.

In the case of the toll workers, the state has set aside some of its projected savings for additional compensation and re-training. It’ll catch heat for that, but it’s the right thing to do. And more broadly speaking, the prospect that vast numbers of jobs might someday disappear argues that the most urgent priority of society is education, for kids as well as adults. It is certainly conceivable that decades from now much menial or repetitive work (and toll-taking certainly qualifies as that) will have been replaced by machines. That should be a good thing, as long as our minds are adept and ready for the new and potentially wondrous prospects such a world brings.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Sunday Globe on January 26, 2014.

Are you happy?

A new study shows that childless couples are happier, but this parent isn’t buying it

Newly married couples walk blissfully into childbirth, eager for the bonding and the cooing and the joys of a newly arrived baby. But a study just released in Britain reports a surprising fact: Couples without kids are actually happier than those with them.

Crying again? It hasn’t been a half hour. Four in the morning, and I haven’t slept more than two hours at a stretch for the last month.

The state-funded inquiry surveyed 5,000 people in all manner of relationships. The results were complicated. Married couples seemed happier than unmarried but cohabitating couples. Single mothers seemed the happiest of all. But still, the cross-cutting variable that made a difference for all couples — straight or gay, married or not — was children. Children made it hard to keep a relationship strong and enduring.

Come over and sit down with me. A glass of wine? I thought they’d never settle down. Mmm, your hair smells good. . .

Mo-o-o-om!!!

Argh.

Trying to figure out the impact of kids on relationships is a favorite topic of sociologists and psychologists. A 2006 US investigation, for example, tracked 13,000 people and found that those with kids were more depressed. There was a political aspect to that conclusion, with some analysts saying the depression was due to the United States providing less support to those with kids. The solution: free day care, parental paid time off, mandatory maternity benefits. I suppose a government-provided maid would help too.

What do you mean you don’t like peanut butter and jelly? You have it every day. Strawberry yogurt? We don’t have that. Look, the bus will be here in like two minutes, and I’ve got to go to work. Can we do the sandwich today and yogurt tomorrow? OK, OK, stop screaming. I’ll drive over and drop it off during the morning, all right?

Part of the reason for the dissatisfaction with raising kids is that it’s not much fun. In 2004, economist Daniel Kahneman found that, of the pleasure to be derived from 19 everyday tasks (such as watching TV, shopping, and child care), child care ranked 16th on the list. Others have come to the same conclusion: Parenting is filled with drudgery and rarely gets a thanks in return.

I’ll pick up May at 2:30 from school and then drop her off to dance, then get Ben at 3:15 for karate, then swing back to school around 4 to get John from afterschool, then get May and then Ben and head home. I’m not sure what’s in the fridge, but we have to have dinner by 6 so they can do their homework.

Meanwhile, researchers from Stony Brook University and Princeton University this month released another analysis claiming that the days of those without kids are more even-keeled. Childless couples go through life as if driving on a flat racetrack while parenthood is like a roller coaster — both start and end at the same place, but the latter have a far tougher ride. “People with kids have more joys and happiness as well as more negative emotions, like anger, worry, and stress,” said co-author Arthur Stone.

Hello? Where are you? It’s 2 a.m.! A ride? Really? You’re what? Yes, I know I told you that you should call. OK, I’ll be there shortly.

Parenting is expensive. The US Department of Agriculture estimates that the cost of raising a child from birth through age 18 is now $241,080 — and that doesn’t even include paying for college.

Did you see this bill? $25,000!

$25,000 for one year? That’s insane.

No, not a year — a semester. Forget the vacation. Forget retiring. And I need a second job.

All of this makes for a cautionary tale for those contemplating pregnancy: Only have a child if you’re prepared for the consequences. Sure, infants are adoring and dependent, the subject of envious looks. But kids quickly develop their own contrary and often surly minds. If you’re looking for a buddy who regards you as all-knowing and wise, get a dog.

So given all this — the work, the financial pressures, the daily crises — I guess if you had to do it all over, you’d just never have had the kids in the first place, right?

No, not a chance. I wouldn’t change anything.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Globe on January 21, 2014.

None of your business

The first great wave of Internet applications got us all connected. The next wave will be to figure out how to reverse that.

Shortly after Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency, Russian intelligence agencies were reportedly thinking of getting rid of computers altogether, going back to typewriters and paper — all, supposedly, untraceable. The folks who make Liquid Paper were probably delighted, but spies using mid-20th century equipment are not going to be a match for those using today’s technologies.

Still, the Russians had a point. We all want to be connected until we don’t want to be connected. Much has been written about the Internet generation’s indifference to privacy. People publicly post the most intimate parts of their lives or, more egregiously, the most boringly mundane. That’s just the way they are, says everyone, shaking their heads at the lack of a barrier between the personal and the public.

That’s now changing. The NSA revelations are spurring a healthy rise in paranoia, but there’s also an emerging awareness that there are genuine consequences from sharing too much with too many — consequences that can live on years after that embarrassing photo was drunkenly posted. And entrepreneurs have begun offering up solutions.

Snapchat, for example, has taken the smartphone world by storm. The basic idea is that photos you share with others vanish after 10 second or less. They can be viewed but not saved or recirculated. (How powerful is this idea? Last November, Google supposedly offered $4 billion to acquire the company.) Meanwhile, a newly released app called Confide does for e-mail what Snapchat does for photos. E-mails sent via Confide appear as a series of solid boxes. Swipe over the boxes with a mouse or finger and the words appear. But once swiped, the words disappear, never to be seen again. Both Snapchat and Confide let senders know if a recipient tries to take a photo or screen shot of the message.

There are other needs. Surfers could use a decent anonymizer tool to hide Internet protocol addresses and so prevent companies and marketers from knowing who they are as they flit from website to website (existing services, such as anonymizer.com, are slow and cumbersome). Office workers would love an application that could prevent accidental reply-alls or group broadcasting of sensitive communications. And smartphones need anti-hacking protections to prevent others from tracking locations or seeing private messages.

There’s a sense by many that the new privacy apps are largely intended to benefit the salacious and illegal. And indeed, if former Congressman Anthony Weiner had been a regular user of Snapchat, he might now be the mayor of New York. Then too, if Bridget Kelly, senior staffer to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, had used Confide to send her damning e-mails, she’d probably still have a job — and the governor would have been spared a huge political scandal. Right now it appears that most Snapchat photos involve sexually oriented or inappropriate poses. And the obvious use of Confide is to hide from others the existence of an affair — something that might have benefited the careers of General David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell, for instance.

Yet it’s not only the bad stuff that we want to keep private. In conversations with each other, people tend to be free and easy in their remarks, testing out ideas, sometimes making ill-thought statements, but comfortable in the notion that what they are saying is in the moment, not something to be preserved for all time. With the advent of the Internet, people tried to take that same conversational approach to their electronic communications. But the permanence of the Internet means that users are gradually realizing that everything they say can be seen by, literally, everyone. There’s no more room for mistakes. Conversations become inhibited and self-censored. The fear of saying something wrong, inappropriate, or just not-well-thought-out stifles creative give-and-take.

These new privacy apps rescue us from this, putting us in the position of saying (or showing) what we want to whom we want — and to no one else. We’ve learned that there are downsides to being connected. Sometimes I’m delighted to let you know what I’m doing. Other times, though, it’s none of your business.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Sunday Globe on January 19, 2014.

How to manage a crisis

Unlike Nixon and Clinton, Christie accepts blame and takes the hit

Imagine this: A few days after burglars break into the Watergate hotel and office complex, President Richard Nixon calls an urgent press conference and unveils some startling news. This was no ordinary break-in, Nixon says. The target had been the Democratic National Committee, and the five men arrested by police were no mere thieves. Rather, they were working at the behest of Nixon’s reelection committee.

There’s more, Nixon says. He had launched his own investigation and discovered that three top White House officials had been involved in planning the operation. His voice shaking with anger, Nixon says he feels “embarrassed and humiliated” by the men’s actions. Pronouncing himself “betrayed” by those he trusted most, he calls the break-in “completely unacceptable” and makes clear it had occurred without his knowledge or approval.

The press conference doesn’t end there. For over two hours Nixon stands before reporters, taking question after question. He vows to cooperate fully with authorities and says he’ll continue his own investigation. “If there is additional information that needs to be disclosed, I will do so. If there are additional actions that need to be taken with my senior staff, I will do so,” he says. Finally, with every question asked and answered, he leaves the podium.

What Nixon failed to do, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie did.

For four days in September, a series of closures of lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge created a traffic nightmare in the community of Fort Lee. Port Authority officials said the closures were part of a traffic study, but for months rumors swirled that there was a political motivation behind them. Christie thought the rumors ludicrous. But a week ago a local newspaper, the Bergen County Record, obtained e-mails that flatly contradicted the governor’s assessment, including this devastating one from staffer Bridget Kelly to a senior member of the Port Authority: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

When those e-mails came to light Christie launched his own investigation, one that concluded with an extraordinary and soul-baring press conference last Thursday. If Nixon had done the same thing, would he have served out his second term as president? Almost certainly.

Although some disagree, it appears that Nixon was unaware beforehand of the plans for the Watergate burglaries. His mistake was covering them up, and it proved his downfall. He’s hardly alone on that score. It’s almost a standard script: Someone does or learns of something wrong, but rather than admit it and face the consequences, tries instead to hide it — with an even worse result. Thus, Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky may have been embarrassing, but it was his lies afterwards that got him impeached and nearly convicted. One-time vice presidential nominee John Edwards was indicted for covering up his affair and out-of-wedlock child with Rielle Hunter, a campaign worker. The Catholic Church’s efforts to hide the actions of abusive priests lost it enormous credibility as well as millions of dollars.

Christie chose a different path and — contrary to those now writing his political obituary — it may prove his salvation.

“The cover-up is worse than the crime,” goes a mantra of public relations professionals. The basic rule for politicians, would-be politicians, or indeed any person or company in the public eye, is to get out bad news as quickly and completely as possible. Don’t try to hide it or whitewash it. Answer any and every question. Move quickly and decisively. Accept the blame and be willing to take the inevitable hits.

It’s good but rarely taken advice; Christie was an exception and followed it perfectly. Of course, let-it-all-hang-out sessions such as his press conference depend upon veracity. If anything he said in that long session proves a lie — if, for example, he had told staffers to exact some revenge — then he probably won’t even serve out his term. Indeed, he might face jail time for obstruction of justice.

But assuming Christie spoke the truth, this scandal and his management of it may work to his favor, enhancing voters’ sense that he is a rare and different breed of politician. A willingness to confront rather than hide wrongdoing might seem just the kind of thing the White House now needs.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Globe on January 14, 2014.

Short steps to a long run as mayor

He’s been in office for almost a week, so the question has to be asked: Can Mayor Marty Walsh beat Tom Menino’s record?

Menino was Boston’s mayor for 7,483 days — 20 years and almost 6 months. Still trying to learn the layout of City Hall, Walsh must regard the prospect of staying in office for such a stretch as almost unimaginable — and contemplating it the height of hubris. But Menino hardly had such a tenure in mind when he first assumed office. Back then he promised to leave after two terms; as the old millennium gave way to the new, he amended that to say he meant two terms “in this century.”

After Walsh has settled into office and the city beats to the rhythms of his governance, he may find, as did Menino, that he loves the work and doesn’t want to leave. And in all likelihood, he won’t have to, as long as he follows a few simple principles.

■ Pick and choose. The issues section of Walsh’s campaign website had thousands of words and hundreds of promises, all of them appended with the tagline “Marty Will Make It Happen as Mayor.” There was something for everyone, and it helped Walsh get elected. But no one can do everything. Walsh needs to figure out his priorities, choosing one or two on which to focus and spending some political capital getting them done. People give you much more credit for doing a few things well than for doing many second-rate.

■ Budget carefully. Balance the budget, with an eye to generating surpluses every year. During good times (and that would be now, by the way; the recession is over) sock away the surplus for the inevitable next recession. Pay bills on time, don’t allow unfunded liabilities to pile up, and keep the Wall Street folks happy. To a self-styled populist like Walsh, this last may rankle, but it’s the financiers who buy your bonds. Bonds help you build stuff, and the interest saved can be plowed back into neighborhoods.

■ Be a CEO. Good CEOs set the vision, hire strong senior-level executives and then let them do their stuff — while at the same time holding them accountable. Mayors must do the same thing. Walsh won’t be responding to fires, but he’ll get the blame if the fire department doesn’t get there quickly enough. Insist on excellence. If staffers aren’t performing, don’t be afraid to give them the boot or — given that mayors operate in a political world — at least a landing place where they’ll do no harm.

■ Sweat the small stuff. City residents really don’t care much about ideologies and epic clashes of ideas. They simply want a city that works. That means tending to the basics of city living: public safety, snow removal, trash pickup, paved streets, clean parks, and the like. As long as day-to-day life is OK for city residents then they’ll want you to stay around.

■ It’s about people, not policies. Mayors have to make choices and over time pretty much everyone will be on the wrong end of one choice or another. Menino’s genius was to overcome that by staying connected with city residents. He met with them constantly, not by inviting them into City Hall, but rather by going out to the neighborhoods and talking to them in casual, non-campaign-like events. The goodwill that generated easily overcame most disagreements. It also gave Menino insight into what people were thinking, insight that helped him better navigate the complexities of his job.

To be frank, even if Walsh doesn’t master the above, the prospects of staying in office are still strong. Incumbency, particularly in a small city such as Boston, has enormous advantages. Any challenger has to raise money, and that money almost inevitably comes from folks whose livelihoods and businesses are somehow dependent on the current mayor. Walsh is 46, four years younger than was Menino when he became acting mayor. Sure, he may choose to walk away after 8 or 12 years — thereby gladdening the hearts of a younger generation of pols craving their own chance in office. But if his health is good and he wants to stay, he likely can stay as long as he wants.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Sunday Globe on January 12, 2014.

An experimental state

Colorado’s pot experiment is a testament to the Founding Fathers — no kidding

Colorado’s experiment with legalizing marijuana for recreational use shows the genius of the Founding Fathers — and, no, I’m not kidding.

A federal system means something. The states that banded together to form the United States were independent entities that under the Constitution kept significant power for themselves. In one conception, they’re “laboratories of democracy,” a term drawn from a comment by Justice Louis Brandeis in a 1932 case that “a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Colorado looks to be the pot field of democracy.

On New Year’s Day, it became the first state to make legal the recreational use of marijuana. It’s not the only one on that path (Washington state likely will do so later this year), but it is definitely breaking ground. We’ve all seen the images of buyers queued up to make their purchases, read impassioned commentary on both sides of the issue, and endured lame jokes about late-night munchies and Rocky Mountain highs. But this is serious stuff. Colorado’s experiment is worth trying, and it should teach us a lot.

Massachusetts itself has a long history as a laboratory for democracy. The Affordable Care Act was patterned on Romneycare. The Bay State was the first to legalize same-sex marriage; its example led to a wave of other states taking the same steps. Massachusetts was also well ahead of the curve on education reform, inspiring national efforts to require standards in all schools.

But when it comes to pot we’re laggards. Voters in 2008 decriminalized possession of small amounts, well after many other states. We’re just about to launch medical marijuana dispensaries, making us the 20th state to do so. And while a group called Bay State Repeal is pushing for a referendum to make pot legal, any ballot measure is at least two or more years off. (Meanwhile, we have in place a mishmash of rules. My favorite: In Boston, the fine for smoking weed on a crowded sidewalk is $100, while the fine for smoking a cigarette in an empty park is $250.)

The pro-marijuana folks believe there will be few negative effects of legalization. Indeed, they argue there will be much benefit, including a reduction in organized crime and a significant savings in police resources. They don’t think use will climb among kids, nor do they foresee any increase in auto accidents as a result of folks driving while high. They point as well to public opinion; an October Gallup poll found 58 percent of Americans supporting legalization.

There is stiff opposition, however, some coming from credible organizations such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana, founded by former US representative Patrick Kennedy. They fear that legal pot will become simply another product for a big tobacco-like industry that will vigorously promote the use of weed among adults as well as kids (from Marlboro Man to Marijuana Man?). They are uneasy about the effects on work and society from a generation consistently using a psychoactive drug and worry too that pot is a gateway to harder drugs.

The arguments on both sides are largely hypothetical, however. The beauty of the Colorado experiment is that eventually we’ll know the answers, and, once we do, Colorado will become a model for the rest of us.

The various state experiments rarely stay in the lab forever. They either catch on (as did Romneycare, gay marriage, and education reform) or they fall flat (as did Nevada’s legalization of prostitution). We’re one country, after all, and in the long run it doesn’t make sense to have different rules apply to residents of different states. That’s especially the case when criminal law is involved — where something done in one state can mean jail time while in another it’s perfectly permissible.

If pot’s proponents are right and Colorado’s experiment succeeds, then marijuana will evenutally be legal across the country. On the other hand, if its opponents are correct, Colorado may rue the day it made the stuff legal — and other states will breathe a sigh of relief that it was someone else who took the risk.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Globe on January 7, 2014.

You don’t need a vacation

I’m writing this column on New Year’s Day, a holiday, I know, but really, who takes time off anymore? And who wants to anyway?

We are not a people that vacations. Right Management, a consulting firm, estimates that 69 percent of all American workers don’t take all of the vacation to which they’re entitled. Hotwire, the travel site, separately figures that, by the end of the year, workers have on average 12 days of unused paid vacation.

At first it seems irrational. Why not take a break from the daily grind? Some point to the recent period of unpleasantness — that would be the Great Recession — and think employees are still feeling skittish about their job security. Rather than use vacation days, they’d just as soon bank them for the next round of layoffs. Others worry that employees believe vacation is a kind of a test to see who really cares about the firm. Sure, go ahead and take those days off. But when it comes time for raises and promotions, we’ll remember those who burned the midnight oil while others were sleeping until noon.

Then add this complication: For many workers, there’s no way to escape the office anymore. We’re connected by computer and smartphone and even when vacationing, there’s an expectation that you’ll at least spend a couple of hours each morning checking in. It’s either that or face the prospect of 1,000 e-mails in your inbox upon your return.

All of this leaves human resources professionals aghast. Vacations are necessary, they argue, a way for employees to recharge and refresh. They’re good for the company, too, helping to boost employee productivity. So the HR folks recommend, for example, that companies limit the amount of vacation time that can roll over. Make your employees take time off, they say. Everyone will be better off.

In fact, there’s surprisingly little hard data that show vacations really do much to improve productivity. Workers in the United States generally take fewer days off than do those from other nations, yet we rank among the highest in the world in productivity per hour worked, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (higher than vacation-loving places such as France). Nor is there much strong evidence that vacations improve workers’ health; much of it is anecdotal stuff easily countered by a marathon viewing of National Lampoon’s “Vacation’’ movies.

Get past the issues about the Great Recession and employee insecurity, and I think there are two reasons we don’t take time off. First, we want to feel important. Second, vacations aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

Many of us work to live but the ideal is that we live to work. We all need to get paid, of course, but we also want our efforts during the day to have meaning, both for ourselves and for the larger world. Taking long stretches of time off belies that. After all, if we can leave the office and things still go smoothly without us, how necessary are we really?

Then too, vacations are often a waste. Parents dread the arrival of summer vacation and scramble to fill up their children’s days with enriching activities. That’s because they know that long periods of idleness do nobody any good. Why do we forget that lesson when it comes to us as adults?

Sure, if your idea of a vacation is that special trip to explore the Italian vineyards, then I’m all for it (although it’s also a safe bet that the transition back to work will be a tough one). But rather than require employees take off weeks at a time, employers might better push for “micro-vacations” that make it easier for workers to balance work and the rest of their lives: liberal parental-leave policies, limits to marathon hours, and company-wide practices such as four-day work weeks during summertime. Then, too, follow the lead of high-tech companies and build in break time during the day. And if you catch an employee goofing off with a game of solitaire? View it as a head-clearing interlude rather than an abuse of company equipment.

In any event, enough. This column’s over. The new year’s started. Back to work.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Sunday Globe on January 5, 2014.