You point out that I made a misrepresentation, which I did do by exclusion of a better example and citation. In Harris v Quinn, the plaintiff quit work to care

You point out that I made a misrepresentation, which I did do by exclusion of a better example and citation. In Harris v Quinn, the plaintiff quit work to care for a sick relative. Finding out that Illinois had a program to assist home health care workers to help defray the costs. She enrolled in the program and was awarded a grant to help her take care of her relative. According to the Service Employees International Union, this made her an employee of the state of Illinois. Because the state of Illinois was a "union shop", it meant that all people of this sort were de facto "home health care employees of the state", and all home health care workers who received grants of this sort were compelled to pay union dues, whether they were employed by the state, the individual to whom they were providing health care, or whomever else. In this regard, anyone who the union deemed to be in the home health care profession, and who availed themselves of state assistance, were members of the union, and obligated to paying dues. [1] - http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court-decision-on-public-union-dues/1143/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court...