that use the list’s exact words. Congress wanted to disqualify from union office persons convicted of “serious” crimes, see 105 Cong. Rec. 6410 (1959) (statement of Sen. Ervin); id. at 6554 (statement of Sen. McClellan); S.Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1959 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 2318, 2329; it intended to create “strong barriers against the control of unions by unreformed convicted thieves, racketeers, and thugs,” 105 Cong.Rec. at 7021 (statement of Sen. Kennedy); see also id. at A6573 (statement of Rep. Brademas). To interpret the disqualification list, and in particular the common law crimes mentioned there, other than as a list of generic descriptions would undercut te and Soda Fountain Employees Union, Local 11, 355 F.Supp. 180, 182-86 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (<HOLDING>); Lippi v. Thomas, 298 F.Supp. 242, 246-49
holding that the finding that entities constitute a single enterprise under 29 usc  203r is separate and distinct from whether an entity is an employer under 29 usc  203d holding under flsa 29 usc  216c holding conviction of labor leader for accepting illegal payments from employers under 29 usc  186 to be bribery under  504 holding conviction for willful misapplication of bank funds under 18 usc  656 1982 to be grand larceny under  504 holding under 29 usc  216c