including in the rather comprehensive enumeration of unfair labor practices set forth in § 8 of the NLRA. That inference was buttressed by the Court’s determination that federal policy underlying the NLRA contemplates the use of economic pressure by the parties as part and parcel of the collective bargaining process. The Court concluded that Wisconsin’s attempt to ban such activity constituted an impermissible intrusion into that process because allowing states to “pick[] and choos[e] which economic devices of labor and management shall be branded as unlawful” would enable them to alter the intended economic balance by “denying one party to an economic contest a weapon that Congre ment of Labor, 440 U.S. 519, 539-40, 99 S.Ct. 1328, 1340-41, 59 L.Ed.2d 553 (1979) (plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>); Youngdahl v. Rainfair, 355 U.S. 131, 138-39,
holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement holding that union members suit based on contract that was independent of a collective bargaining agreement was not preempted and not removable holding  1001 prosecution for false statements in unemployment benefits not precluded by unemployment benefits statute specifically addressing topic holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits holding new yorks payment of unemployment benefits to strikers not preempted though it indirectly affected the collective bargaining relationship by enabling employees to remain on strike because the purpose of the law was not to regulate the bargaining relationship but to provide an efficient means of insuring the state unemployment system