specially concurring:
As a senior member of the “born-again” Fifth Circuit, I sit with my friends and former colleagues on this court as a visitor, a judicial interloper. As a guest, I am naturally reluctant to burden my hosts with, torrid tales of bygone battles, for there is no surer way to wear out one’s welcome. However, a good guest should not sit in stony silence when the conversation turns to matters of great moment. Thus, I feel that I must add a personal note of reluctant concurrence.
As the author of the panel opinion in N. L. R. B. v. Haberman Construction Company, 618 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1980), my views on the issues presented in this case are a matter of record. It is my position that the rule set forth by the en bane court in Ha-berman leaves those in the construction trades without the effective protections of collective bargaining, nomadic orphans in labor’s maelstrom.
The rule adopted by the en banc court in Haberman forces unions to demonstrate majority support at each construction project before they can enforce an area-wide prehire agreement at that project. I *96believe that this rule imposes an impossible burden upon the exercise of important rights secured by the National Labor Relations Act. However, my views in this matter have been rejected. This panel is bound to follow the rule set forth in the 5th Circuit’s en banc opinion in Haberman. Only en banc reconsideration by the Eleventh. Circuit can change this result.
Thus, while I adhere to the views expressed in the panel opinion in Haberman, I recognize that well established principles of stare decisis require this panel to affirm the decision of the district court. Having duly noted my reservations, I concur.