were distinct from the injury to the union (“lost union dues”)). As Associated General Contractors suggests, injuries to employees differ in kind and degree from injuries to their union — a difference that causes one to wonder exactly what a union could recover in this setting. The union could not sue for depressed wages because it does not receive wages; it negotiates them. Nor does it make a difference that the union perhaps could sue in an associational capacity on behalf of the employees — an issue we address below — because that would still be a lawsuit to recover for a direct injury to the employees, not the union. Nor is this a case in which the union’s property or funds were mishandled. See Adams-Lundy v. Ass’n of Prof'l Flight Attendants, 844 F.2d 245, 250 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). All of this strongly suggests that the
holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members and reimbursing the attorneys fees from the union treasury such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation recognizing union members vital concern in preserving jobs for union members holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union