Wash Your Hands - Redux

Over the summer, I posted an entry espousing the benefits of hand-washing. I've also done a series of posts highlighting employment-related topics in Super Freakonomics. Little did I know that there would be some overlap between the two.

As it relates to current events, washing your hands can help prevent the spread of H1N1, but it also helps prevent the spread of numerous other illnesses. In the case of medical professionals, washing their hands can literally be a matter of life or death for their patients. In Super Freakonomics, the authors reveal that medical workers (particularly doctors) are not particularly good at washing their hands.

The authors describe an effective method employed by Cedars-Sinai. The medical center set the computer screensavers to pictures of bacteria-laden hand cultures taken of physicians' hands. The book reports that hand-hygiene compliance "shot up to nearly 100 percent." The Freakonomics blog reports that "Clean Hand programs are now the norm at hospitals."

Admittedly, the audience at a hospital may be more responsive to a bacteria culture than the average, say accountant (as an example). But perhaps there is something to this screensaver thing. Maybe it's "wash your hands to help stop H1N1" one day, and "ummm, yeah, we're putting new cover sheets on all the TPS reports*" the next. The possibilities are endless!

Sidenote: ABC posted a 20/20 video showing the actual hand-culture screensavers. It also includes an interview with the Super Freakonomics authors, the dangers of dirty neckties, and disturbing footage of a woman with a flesh-eating disease in her stomach.

* That's a reference to the movie Office Space.

ADA Resulting in Fewer Jobs for Individuals with Disabilities?

As I explained in an earlier post (noting the link between Title IX and Women Coaches), I will be passing along the interesting employment law tidbits I encounter in Levitt and Dubner's SuperFreakonomics.

On page 139, inserted in a discussion of the law of unintended consequences:

"Consider the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was intended to safeguard disabled workers from discrimination. A noble intention, yes? Absolutely--but the data convincingly show that the net result was fewer jobs for Americans with disabilities. Why? After the ADA became law, employers were so worried they wouldn't be able to discipline or fire bad workers who had a disability that they avoided hiring such workers in the first place."

I wonder how they feel about the ADAAA?

The authors relied on a study by two MIT Economics professors finding that:

"Empirical results using the CPS suggest that the ADA had a negative effect on the employment of disabled men of all working ages and disabled women under age 40. The effects appear to be larger in medium size firms, possibly because small firms were exempt from the ADA. The effects are also larger in states where there have been more ADA-related discrimination charges. Estimates of effects on hiring and firing suggest the ADA reduced hiring of the disabled but did not affect separations."

The official "suggested citation" from SSRN:

Acemoglu, Daron and Angrist, Joshua D., Consequences of Employment Protection? The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act (September 1998). Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109, October 2001. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=237501. If you know a counterargument or another empirical study please drop a comment.

More SuperFreakonomics notes coming soon!

Title IX and Women Coaches

In SuperFreakonomics, authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner return to examine more surprising phenomenon in their sequel to the bestseller, Freakonomics. They mix in a number of employment (law) related tidbits. I'll pass on the interesting ones via Lawffice Space.

Tonight's surprising tidbit involves a correlation between Title IX and coaches in women's sports. Title IX generally prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational settings, including athletic programs. Levitt and Dubner first acknowledge the positive impact Title IX has had on female athletes but then note that "Title IX also brought some bad news for women."

In short, college women's sports teams were primarily coached by women until Title IX came around. Now women are the minority. The authors opine:

"Title IX boosted the appeal of such jobs: salaries rose and there was more exposure and excitement. Like the lowly peasant food that is 'discovered' by the culinary elite and promptly migrates from roadside shacks into high-end restaurants, these jobs were soon snapped up by a new set of customers: men."

One of the sources they cite is Women in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal, National Study Twenty Seven Year Update (1977-2004) by Linda Carpenter and R. Vivian Acosta. The study found that "When Title IX was enacted in 1972, more than 90% of women's teams were coached by women." In 2004, only "44.1% of the coaches of women's teams [was] female."

Well there's certainly a correlation. But as we all know (or at least should know!), correlation does not equal causation. Levitt and Dubner offer one explanation, specifically that Title IX enhanced women's sports programs which enticed men into the market. More SuperFreakonomics tidbits forthcoming!