This bibliography was prepared as supporting documentation for Project I/BTH-Bl-002 (ITS) conducted by the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, under the sponsorship of the State of California's Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. 

This project reviewed three facets of human resource productivity in public transit: workers' compensation costs, extraboard scheduling and operator stress. These seemingly disparate topics share a common attribute: they each have been associated with the costs of absenteeism in the transit industry. Management concerns about abuses of workers' compensation have led them to regard this program as a significant incentive for absenteeism. Extraboards, in contrast, have helped to insure schedule reliability by providing a ready pool of labor to replace absent employees. 1 The phenomenon of operator stress has occupied a middle ground, viewed by some as a cause of workers' compensation claims, and by others as a result of traditional scheduling practices, such as the extraboard. 

This bibliography reviews over 50 international studies which have addressed the interrelated issues of absenteeism, workers' compensation, extraboard scheduling and stress-related illness in the transit industry. Section I provides bibliographic information and summary abstracts of each of these studies. Section II describes two recently initiated U.S. research projects which are exploring transit operator stress, hypertension, and operator performance for the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Academy of Science's Transportation Research Board. Section Ill, prepared by project assistants Susan Lesh and Marianne Miasnik, lists a number of general studies of workers' compensation reviewed as background to our current study.

In the present study, a framework is developed for evaluating the union management relationship in government based broadly on the concept of organizational effectiveness. A number of previous evaluative studies of the union management relationship are first examined to demonstrate some of the inadequacies of alternative approaches as well as the differences between these approaches and the framework we develop. The conceptual rationale for using organizational effectiveness as the yardstick against which to evaluate the union-management relationship is then discussed. We conclude with a discussion of the utility of the framework for evaluating union-management relationships in government.

The impact of the union-management relationship on government effectiveness cannot be underestimated. Newland (1971) argues that "collective bargaining must serve as one of several vehicles for creative change...if it is to be compatible with future public interests" (p. i). A variety of assessments indicate, however, that collective bargaining in government has been, rather than a vehicle for creative change, an instrument for achieving partisan interests (Doherty, 1971; Nigro, 1972; Perry & Levine, 1976; Shaw & Clark, 1972). As long as public managers pit public employees against citizens or public employee unions pit the public against management, labor-management relations in government will have decidedly negative impacts on the parties, the public, and the political system. Methods are needed for re-integrating management, employee, and citizen interests. The evaluative framework we propose highlights the multiplicity of interests that must be balanced through the union-management relationship. It also identifies explicit criteria for which all the parties in public sector bargaining should be held accountable.