Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

Cite as:  567 U. S. ____ (2012) 

21 

Opinion of the Court 

result, a broad array of ballot questions and campaigns for
public office may be said to have an effect on present and 
future  contracts  between  public-sector  workers  and  their 
employers.  If the concept of “germaneness” were as broad 
as  the  SEIU  advocates,  public-sector  employees  who  do 
not  endorse  the  unions’  goals  would  be  essentially  unpro-
tected  against  being  compelled  to  subsidize  political  and 
ideological activities to which they object. 

Second, even if the SEIU’s statistics are accurate, it does 
not follow that it was proper for the union to charge object-
ing  nonmembers  56.35%—or  any  other  particular  per-
centage—of the special assessment.  Unless it is possible to
determine  in  advance  with  some  degree  of  accuracy  the
percentage  of  union  funds  that  will  be  used  during  an 
upcoming  year  for  chargeable  purposes—and  the  SEIU 
argues  that  this  is  not  possible—there  is  at  least  a  risk 
that,  at  the  end  of  the  year,  unconsenting  nonmembers
will  have  paid  either  too  much  or  too  little.    Which  side 
should bear this risk? 

The  answer  is  obvious:  the  side  whose  constitutional 
rights are not at stake.  “Given the existence of acceptable
alternatives,  [a]  union  cannot  be  allowed  to  commit  dis-
senters’  funds  to  improper  uses  even  temporarily.”    Ellis, 
466 U. S., at 444.  Thus, if unconsenting nonmembers pay 
too much, their First Amendment rights are infringed.  On 
the other hand, if unconsenting nonmembers pay less than 
their  proportionate  share,  no  constitutional  right  of  the 
union  is  violated  because  the  union  has  no  constitutional 
right  to  receive  any  payment  from  these  employees.    See 
Davenport,  551  U. S.,  at  185.    The  union  has  simply  lost 
for a few months the “extraordinary” benefit of being em- 
powered  to  compel  nonmembers  to  pay  for  services  that
they  may  not  want  and  in  any  event  have  not  agreed  to 
fund. 

As we have noted, by allowing unions to collect any fees
from nonmembers and by permitting unions to use opt-out