b'hasbeenrejectedbytheNLRBandthecourts,ontheviewthattheDenver BuildingTradesrule,nottheGeneralElectricrule,appliestotheconstructionindustry.Thus,theconstructiontradesunionsclaimtheyneed asituspicketingbilltooverridetheDenverBuildingTradescaseandto beaffordedstrikeandpicketingrightsequaltoindustrialunions. Ifequalitywerethesolegoalofconstructiontradeunions,an"equal treatment"bill wouldneedonlyamendSectionB(b) (4) (B)oftheTaft-Hartley Acttoprovidethataunionwithalegitimatedisputewithaconstruction generalcontractormaypicketnotonlythatgeneralcontractorbutall of itsconstructionsubcontractorsatacommonsitewhoseworkisrelatedto thegeneral\'sday-to-dayconstructionofthebuildingprojectonthatsite. An"equaltreatment"billshouldalsorepealtheexceptontoSectionB(e) ofTaft-Hartleywhichaffordsspecialtreatmenttotheconstructionindustry withrespectto"hotcargo"agreements. IsH.R.4250suchan"equaltreatment"bill?Noway!First,andforemost,thebill wouldrepealall ofSection8(b)ofTaft-Hartleywithrespect toconstructionsitepicketingandbargaining.Section8(b}containsall buttwooftheunfairlaborpracticeswhichapplytounions.Inother words,inthenameof"equaltreatment",constructionunionswouldbe favoredaboveall otherunionsinthatpresentunfairlaborpracticeprovisionsofTaft-Hartleywouldnotapplytoconstructionsitestrikeand picketingactivities.Togiveyousomeideaoftheeffect ofthisrepeal, aconstructionunionwouldbepermittedtostrikeorpicketataconstructionsiteforoneormoreofthefollowingotherwiseunlawfulobjectives underTaft-Hartley: 1.Torequirethattheprimaryemployerselectorfirecertain supervisors. 2.Insupportofa"takeit orleaveit"bargainingposition. 3.Insupportofnon-mandatorybargainingdemandssuchaswhat worktheemployershallorshallnotperformorrepresentationontheemployer\'sboardofdirectors . 4.Forceanemployertostopdoingbusinesswithanother,e.g., asupplier,asubcontractor,abank,etc. Thelist ofpotential"horribles"whichmightoccurbyvirtueofthe repealofSection8(b)couldgoonandon.Sufficeit tosaythatwith theenactmentofH.R.4250andtherepealofSection8(b},theBuilding andConstructionTradesDepartmentoftheAFL-CIOwouldhavethemeans availabletoexercisetightcontrolovertheconstructionindustryand itsemployees. Intheinterestofequaltreatment,doesH.R.4250repealtheconstructionindustryexemptiontoSection8(e)ofTaft-Hartley?Don\'tbe silly.ThatexemptionwouldbeuntouchedbyH.R.4250. Theclaim of constructiontradeunionsthatH.R.4250isneededtogive themequaltreatmentisnothingmorethanadisguise- asmokescreenhidingtherealpurposeofthebill.Therealpurposeiscontroloftheconstructionindustrybymeansofunrestricted,noholdsbarredstrikesand picketing. MakesureyourCongressmenandSenatorsareawareofthetrueimpact andpurposeofH.R.4250.Urgedefeatofthebill!ACTNOW!DON\'TLEAVE"::\' ITTOHARRY~YOUWRITE- CALL- WIRE!NOW!'