Light duties weren't entirely altruistic. If people were injured due to employer negligence, then compensation could be mitigated by light duties employment. The prevalence of light duties work could probably be found by early New Earnings Survey analysis, where data from 1974 was published in some detail. But you need to understand the Key Occupations for Statistics and the underlying Classification and Directory of Occupations and Trades... Similar detail to the current US classifications that get used a lot.
Slightly more tractable for data analysis would be early waves of the British Household Panel Study, where a work history was taken and coded up in 1990s standards. For people willing to do survey archaeology, the 1975 National Training Survey (available from the Data Archive) does include work histories and reasons for changing occupation. But, coded before value and variable labels were a thing, and the documentation is scanned...
When I looked into global labour market eoonomics in the late 90s I found this an interesting piece of the puzzle. For example Japan at the time had low rate of unemployment and disability but when I asked around (and later visited) it had lots of 'light jobs', e.g. most car parks had 2 gents at the entrance to look out for the cars and literally stop the traffic to help cars leave the car park.
This was very helpful (and understandable) culturally because at the time to be a proper employee (of any kind) is what gave one social dignity, and to be completely out of work was very stigmatised. This is the great thing about the 'light duties' model more generally, it tends to offer more dignity tha the benefits-led approach (at the cost of lots of hidden inefficiency and a degree of random unfairness - both in who gets help and who has to pay for it).
The Dutch Labour government at the time was experimenting extensively with directly funding 'light jobs' known as Melkert-jobs after the relevant minister, but they were scrapped by a succeeding right wing government, partly because they failed at their formal purpose of preparing their recipients for 'proper' jobs, missing the fundamental point that a % of the population are simply unable to do 'proper' work to 21st century levels of intensity.
Light duties weren't entirely altruistic. If people were injured due to employer negligence, then compensation could be mitigated by light duties employment. The prevalence of light duties work could probably be found by early New Earnings Survey analysis, where data from 1974 was published in some detail. But you need to understand the Key Occupations for Statistics and the underlying Classification and Directory of Occupations and Trades... Similar detail to the current US classifications that get used a lot.
Slightly more tractable for data analysis would be early waves of the British Household Panel Study, where a work history was taken and coded up in 1990s standards. For people willing to do survey archaeology, the 1975 National Training Survey (available from the Data Archive) does include work histories and reasons for changing occupation. But, coded before value and variable labels were a thing, and the documentation is scanned...
Really helpful (as ever) Paul, many thanks! I have a couple of leads now, so will see if I can find a way to take this forward..
When I looked into global labour market eoonomics in the late 90s I found this an interesting piece of the puzzle. For example Japan at the time had low rate of unemployment and disability but when I asked around (and later visited) it had lots of 'light jobs', e.g. most car parks had 2 gents at the entrance to look out for the cars and literally stop the traffic to help cars leave the car park.
This was very helpful (and understandable) culturally because at the time to be a proper employee (of any kind) is what gave one social dignity, and to be completely out of work was very stigmatised. This is the great thing about the 'light duties' model more generally, it tends to offer more dignity tha the benefits-led approach (at the cost of lots of hidden inefficiency and a degree of random unfairness - both in who gets help and who has to pay for it).
The Dutch Labour government at the time was experimenting extensively with directly funding 'light jobs' known as Melkert-jobs after the relevant minister, but they were scrapped by a succeeding right wing government, partly because they failed at their formal purpose of preparing their recipients for 'proper' jobs, missing the fundamental point that a % of the population are simply unable to do 'proper' work to 21st century levels of intensity.
Minimum wage and NICs rises are also a factor here. When looked at from the perspective of maximising employment of the kind you are disucssing
My great-grandfather is an example - he spent the last years of his life as a quarry timekeeper.