Summer vacation season is here. But if you’re like a surprising number of Americans, you’re probably leaving some paid time off on the table. Among workers whose employer offers paid vacation or leave, 46 percent said they typically took less time off than was offered, a recent Pew survey found. Here’s why:
-
They don’t feel they need to take more time off (52 percent).
-
They worry about falling behind at work (49 percent).
-
They feel bad about having co-workers take on additional work (43 percent).
-
They think taking more time off might hurt their chances for career advancement (19 percent).
-
They think they might risk losing their job (16 percent).
-
Their manager discourages taking time off (12 percent).
Decisions that leaders make about work culture most likely play into several of these reasons, such as a fear of being retaliated against or missing a promotion. And worry about leaving co-workers with extra work could be more intense on a team that is poorly managed or understaffed.
At the same time, the most popular reason cited for not taking all the available paid time off is that workers don’t feel they need to.
And many people keep working when they are technically “off.” Fifty-five percent of respondents said they checked work emails and messages outside work hours “extremely often,” “often” or “sometimes.”
Employees do seem to value having paid time off available. In the Pew survey, 89 percent of all workers said it was “extremely” or “very” important that their job provide paid time off for vacations, doctor appointments and minor illnesses, with more people selecting the “extremely important” category than for employer-sponsored health insurance or an employer-sponsored retirement program.
DealBook wants to hear from you: Do you use your vacation time? Do you encourage your employees to use their vacation time? Why or why not? Let us know at dealbook@nytimes.com.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
Twitter drops the mic. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida announced his presidential campaign in a Twitter event on Wednesday, but more than 20 minutes of technical glitches disrupted the live audio event, costing it more than half its initial audience. Questions about the reliability of Twitter’s infrastructure have dogged the company for months.
Debt deal in sight. House Republicans and the White House have narrowed their differences on a deal for raising the debt limit and avoiding a government default. The stakes are high: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said the government could run out of cash as soon as June 5.
A.I. shocks stocks. On Monday, an image generated by artificial intelligence that appeared to show a government building near the Pentagon on fire sent stocks on a few-minute tumble. Later in the week, the rising prominence of A.I. had the opposite effect on the share price of Nvidia, which makes computer chips used to power A.I. systems. After delivering a knockout sales outlook, it set a record in premarket trading on Thursday.
Tech rules. On Thursday, Microsoft became the latest tech company to propose regulations for artificial intelligence. It wants an “emergency brake” for systems used in critical infrastructure and labels that make it clear when an image or video was produced by a computer. Earlier in the week, Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, committed to a voluntary “A.I. pact” with other firms to develop A.I. responsibly ahead of looming regulations in Europe.
Family drama
HBO will release its last episode of “Succession” on Sunday. The show has only about eight million viewers per episode, but it has racked up publicity, awards and critical accolades, and those are valuable to HBO as it battles Hulu, Amazon and Netflix for subscribers.
Show makers like to repeat past successes. Which means they are no doubt looking for their next story about a high-stakes family business. The fictional Roy family in “Succession” bears an uncanny resemblance to the Murdoch family. But the business world has no shortage of dynasties awash in wealth, strife and fabulous clothes. Here are our suggestions.
The Arnaults. Bernard Arnault, the 74-year-old chairman of the world’s largest luxury company (and the world’s richest person), has been carefully planning for how to pass on the baton, dividing up key roles in the LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton empire among his five children.
Like “Succession,” the show would have to save at least one episode for a magnificent European wedding, in this case inspired by Alexandre Arnault’s nuptials in Venice, where invited guests included Beyoncé, Jay-Z and Kanye West. A scene inspired by the glitzy reopening of Tiffany after LVMH bought the brand in a turbulent acquisition would be an excellent season finale.
The Sacklers. The family behind Purdue Pharma, whose opioid painkiller, OxyContin, initially dominated the market, has fractured during the financial and societal fallout from the company’s role in the opioid crisis. Scenes could include a withering congressional inquiry and members of the family walking into an equivalent of the Sackler wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art after it has been stripped of their name.
The Maras. The family that owns the New York Giants split into two factions. Wellington Mara, his wife and 11 children were on one side. On the other was Wellington’s nephew, Tim Mara. Show credits could feature the Venetian blind that reportedly divided their stadium luxury suites at the height of their tension. The series would end in 1995 when Tim Mara, lacking any other recourse, sold his stake in the team.
Honorable mentions: These family business dramas could sustain, if not multiple seasons of a show, at least an eight-episode mini-series:
-
The Safras. Joseph Safra was one of the world’s richest bankers. This year, more than two years after Joseph’s death in 2020, one of his sons, Alberto, sued two of his brothers and his mother, arguing that they were trying to push him out of his father’s company, Safra National Bank of New York.
-
The Kushners. A family feud between the real estate executive Charles Kushner and his brother-in-law over business helped land Charles in jail. One of his sons became the son-in-law to former President Donald Trump, then raised billions from the Saudis. The other opened a high-power venture fund and married a model.
Phrase of the week: Stealth wealth
The rich really are different. Unlike those who aspire to look luxe, the truly moneyed signal their taste subtly. Or that’s the idea underlying “stealth wealth,” the muted 2023 fashion trend exemplified by the wardrobes of “Succession.” There are no logos, flashy designs or bright colors, no cries for attention — just seemingly simple neutral and navy items, exorbitantly priced, ostensibly for the high-quality materials and craftsmanship.
If you can’t guess the designer of a $500 baseball cap or a $5,000 suit — and wouldn’t think to, frankly, because they’re plain — the wearer’s mission is accomplished. And if you can spot “quiet luxury,” as it’s also called, you’re discerning, part of the inner circle, a fraction of the tastefully fashionable few who can spot a needle in a haystack or $1,500 ballet flats by their resemblance to socks.
Presumably, you’re too cool to make the mistake of one interloper on the show, carrying a “ludicrously capacious” bag that was pricey but accidentally highlighted her outsider status with its bold Burberry trademark check and size. The stealthily wealthy may be burdened by their fortunes, but they appear to travel light, swathed in beiges, blacks and grays by designers like Ferragamo, Bottega Veneta, Loro Piana, Brunello Cucinelli, Hermes, the Row and Max Mara.
Flight delayed? Get paid: DealBook readers respond
Airlines and government officials hope to avoid flight delays and cancellations this summer as the number of air travelers threatens to eclipse prepandemic levels. In a previous newsletter, DealBook reported that President Biden wanted airlines to compensate passengers for these types of disruptions, and we asked you to share your thoughts.
In roughly half of the three dozen emails that DealBook received on the matter, readers expressed support for the measure, saying the time had come for U.S. travelers to get the same kinds of protections afforded consumers in Canada and the European Union.
About one-quarter of the DealBook readers expressed the opposite view. They said that paying late fees to travelers was excessive, and that it was better for the industry to adopt its own policies. Interestingly, readers from the pro and con camps were worried that such a measure would push up ticket prices.
Oh, and one reader had a bigger suggestion: “Invest in passenger trains. Give them priority over other trains on the rails.”
Thanks for reading! We’d like your feedback. Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com.
