Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 59.0

4  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

representing  the  interests  of  employees  in  settling  dis-
putes  and  processing  grievances  are  continuing  and  diffi-
cult ones.”  Ibid.  Those activities, the Court noted, require
the  “expenditure  of  much  time  and  money”—for  example, 
payment  for  the  “services  of  lawyers,  expert  negotiators,
economists,  and  a  research  staff.”  Ibid.   And  there  is  no 
way  to  confine  the  union’s  services  to  union  members 
alone (and thus to trim costs) because unions must by law 
fairly represent all employees in a given bargaining unit—
union members and non-members alike.  See ibid. 

With all that in mind, the Court recognized why both a
government entity and its union bargaining partner would 
gravitate  toward  an  agency-fee  clause.  Those  fees,  the 
Court  reasoned,  “distribute  fairly  the  cost”  of  collective
bargaining  “among  those  who  benefit”—that  is,  all  em-
ployees in the work unit.  Id., at 222.  And they “counter-
act[ ]  the  incentive  that  employees  might  otherwise  have
to become ‘free riders.’ ”  Ibid.  In other words, an agency-
fee  provision  prevents  employees  from  reaping  all  the 
“benefits  of  union  representation”—higher  pay,  a  better 
retirement plan, and so forth—while leaving it to others to 
bear the costs.  Ibid.  To the Court, the upshot was clear: A
government  entity  could  reasonably  conclude  that  such  a
clause  was  needed  to  maintain  the  kind  of  exclusive  bar-
gaining  arrangement  that  would  facilitate  peaceful  and
stable labor relations. 

But  the  Court  acknowledged  as  well  the  “First  Amend-
ment  interests”  of  dissenting  employees.    Ibid.    It  recog-
nized that some workers might oppose positions the union 
takes  in  collective  bargaining,  or  even  “unionism  itself.” 
Ibid.  And  still  more,  it  understood  that  unions  often 
advance  “political  and  ideological”  views  outside  the 
collective-bargaining context—as when they “contribute to
political  candidates.”  Id.,  at  232,  234.  Employees  might 
well object to the use of their money to support such “ideo-
logical causes.”  Id., at 235.