IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedmoi/88802.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who’s In and Who’s Out under Workplace COVID Symptom Screening?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

COVID symptom screening, a new workplace practice, is likely to affect many millions of American workers in the coming months. Eleven states already require and federal guidance recommends frequent screening of employees for infection symptoms. This paper provides some of the first empirical work exploring the tradeoffs employers face in using daily symptom screening. First, we find that common symptom checkers will likely screen out up to 7 percent of workers each day, depending on the measure used. Second, we find that the measures used will matter for three reasons: many respondents report any given symptom, survey design affects responses, and demographic groups report symptoms at different rates, even absent fluctuations in likely COVID exposure. This last pattern can potentially lead to disparate impacts, and is important from an equity standpoint.

Suggested Citation

  • Krista Ruffini & Aaron Sojourner & Abigail Wozniak, 2020. "Who’s In and Who’s Out under Workplace COVID Symptom Screening?," Opportunity and Inclusive Growth Institute Working Papers 36, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedmoi:88802
    DOI: 10.21034/iwp.36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-institute/iwp36.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.21034/iwp.36?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kumar, S. & Quinn, S.C. & Kim, K.H. & Daniel, L.H. & Freimuth, V.S., 2012. "The impact of workplace policies and other social factors on self-reported influenza-like illness incidence during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(1), pages 134-140.
    2. Damon Jones & David Molitor & Julian Reif, 2019. "What do Workplace Wellness Programs do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 134(4), pages 1747-1791.
    3. Abigail Wozniak, 2015. "Discrimination and the Effects of Drug Testing on Black Employment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(3), pages 548-566, July.
    4. Dingel, Jonathan I. & Neiman, Brent, 2020. "How many jobs can be done at home?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    5. Daron Acemoglu & Victor Chernozhukovz & Iván Werning & Michael D. Whinston, 2020. "Optimal Targeted Lockdowns in a Multi-Group SIR Model," Working Papers 826, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    6. Jennifer L. Doleac & Benjamin Hansen, 2017. "Moving to Job Opportunities? The Effect of "Ban the Box" on the Composition of Cities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 556-559, May.
    7. Abigail Wozniak, 2020. "Disparities and Mitigation Behavior during COVID-19," Opportunity and Inclusive Growth Institute Working Papers 32, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    8. Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 991-1013, September.
    9. David H. Autor & David Scarborough, 2008. "Does Job Testing Harm Minority Workers? Evidence from Retail Establishments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 123(1), pages 219-277.
    10. Terry‐Ann Craigie, 2020. "Ban The Box, Convictions, And Public Employment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(1), pages 425-445, January.
    11. Stefan Pichler & Katherine Wen & Nicolas R. Ziebarth, 2021. "Positive Health Externalities of Mandating Paid Sick Leave," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 715-743, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ballance, Joshua & Clifford, Robert & Shoag, Daniel, 2020. "“No more credit score”: Employer credit check bans and signal substitution," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    2. Robert Clifford & Daniel Shoag, 2016. "“No more credit score”: employer credit check bans and signal substitution," Working Papers 16-10, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    3. Keith Finlay, 2009. "Effect of Employer Access to Criminal History Data on the Labor Market Outcomes of Ex-Offenders and Non-Offenders," NBER Chapters, in: Studies of Labor Market Intermediation, pages 89-125, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Louis-Philippe Beland & Abel Brodeur & Taylor Wright, 2020. "COVID-19, Stay-at-Home Orders and Employment: Evidence from CPS Data," Carleton Economic Papers 20-04, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised 19 May 2020.
    5. Morgane Laouenan & Roland Rathelot, 2017. "Ethnic Discrimination on an Online Marketplace of Vacation Rental," Working Papers hal-01514713, HAL.
    6. Hakan Yilmazkuday, 2021. "Welfare costs of COVID‐19: Evidence from US counties," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 826-848, September.
    7. Mauro Caselli & Andrea Fracasso & Sergio Scicchitano, 2020. "From the lockdown to the new normal: An analysis of the limitations to individual mobility in Italy following the Covid-19 crisis," Discussion Paper series in Regional Science & Economic Geography 2020-07, Gran Sasso Science Institute, Social Sciences, revised Oct 2020.
    8. Fetzer, Thiemo, 2020. "Subsidizing the spread of COVID19 : Evidence from the UK’s Eat-Out to-Help-Out scheme," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1310, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    9. Méon, Pierre-Guillaume & Szafarz, Ariane, 2011. "The modern corporation as a safe haven for taste-based discrimination: An agency model of hiring decisions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 487-497, August.
    10. Joanna N. Lahey & Douglas R. Oxley, 2018. "Discrimination at the Intersection of Age, Race, and Gender: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 25357, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Nayoung Rim & Roman Rivera & Andrea Kiss & Bocar Ba, 2020. "The Black-White Recognition Gap in Award Nominations," Working Papers 2020-065, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    12. Clifford, Robert & Shoag, Daniel, 2016. ""No More Credit Score": Emplyer Credit Check Bans and Signal Substitution," Working Paper Series 16-008, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    13. Baert, Stijn & De Pauw, Ann-Sophie, 2014. "Is ethnic discrimination due to distaste or statistics?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 270-273.
    14. Cem Çakmaklı & Selva Demiralp & Ṣebnem Kalemli-Özcan & Sevcan Yesiltas & Muhammed A. Yildirim, 2020. "COVID-19 and Emerging Markets: A SIR Model, Demand Shocks and Capital Flows," NBER Working Papers 27191, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Pierre-Guillaume Méon & Ariane Szafarz, 2008. "Labor market discrimination as an agency cost," DULBEA Working Papers 08-19.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Jennifer L. Doleac & Benjamin Hansen, 2016. "Does “Ban the Box” Help or Hurt Low-Skilled Workers? Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories are Hidden," NBER Working Papers 22469, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Rich, Judy, 2014. "What Do Field Experiments of Discrimination in Markets Tell Us? A Meta Analysis of Studies Conducted since 2000," IZA Discussion Papers 8584, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Conrad Miller, 2017. "The Persistent Effect of Temporary Affirmative Action," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 152-190, July.
    19. Rajeev Darolia & Cory Koedel & Paco Martorell & Katie Wilson & Francisco Perez‐Arce, 2015. "Do Employers Prefer Workers Who Attend For‐Profit Colleges? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 881-903, September.
    20. Hans Martin von Gaudecker & Radost Holler & Lena Janys & Bettina Siflinger & Christian Zimpelmann, 2020. "Labour Supply During Lockdown and a “New Normal”: The Case of the Netherlands," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2020_211, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General
    • J70 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination - - - General
    • K30 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - General
    • M50 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedmoi:88802. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cfrbmus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cfrbmus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.