Plus, the little-known truth about the PRO Act
If you're going to allow someone to claim they were "egregiously misrepresented," I'd think common courtesy and normal journalistic practice would have you contact that person, which you didn't do.
I mentioned his quote with the following introduction that came after a nuanced view of the PRO Act: "As for those on social media claiming there would be no problem for ICs, here’s a selection from an interview the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign did with Michael LeRoy, a professor and expert in labor law at the school:"
Then, the quote: "The PRO Act would likely have adverse effects on some types of workers. Even before a union would organize, some work would be restructured by using brokers or substituting more technology for humans – for example, more home-installed computers and phone apps to measure blood pressure, oxygenation, heart function and other similar health data in place of a home health care worker who takes these measurements.
But yes, the law would possibly limit work for women, retirees, college students and other similar demographics. But let’s not forget what the PRO Act does: It would allow workers to vote for or against a union. If workers fear loss of jobs due to forming a union, they should vote no and keep the status quo."
I never said that was the entirety of his views. I have heard that he's been trying to walk that quote back. If the use was so out of context (and you can read the interview with him, because I think my use was reasonable), he could have contacted me and explained how he thought it was so off. He didn't. I'm still happy to make a change or take something out if he can show that the quote (far more than a snippet) was egregiously chosen. I'm easy to find.