Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 44

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

11 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

new  objector  to  withhold  only  the  portion  of  the  fee  that
will  pay  for  nonchargeable  expenses  (as  the  logic  of  the
concurring  Justices  would  suggest),  the  administrative
problems  that  I  earlier  discussed  apply.  See  supra,  at  6. 
That is to say, unions, arbitrators, and courts will have to 
determine,  on  the  basis  of  a  prediction,  how  much  of  the 
special  assessment  the  new  objector  can  withhold.  I  con-
cede  that  many  administrative  problems  could  be  over-
come  were  the  new  objector  allowed  to  withhold  only  the 
same  44%  of  the  fee  that  the  union  here  permitted  ini-
tial  objectors  to  withhold  (a  figure  based  on  2004  au- 
dited  accounts).  But  no  Member  of  the  Court  takes  that 
approach.

For another thing, as I have previously pointed out, the
Court would permit nonmembers who did not object at the
beginning  of  the  year  (like  those  who  did  then  object)  to 
object  to  (and  to  pay  none  of)  every  special  assessment,
including  those  made  to  raise  money  to  pay  additional 
collective-bargaining  expenses.  This  approach  may  avoid
the  uncertainty  and  resulting  disputes  inherent  in  an  ef-
fort  to  limit  withholding  to  the  nonchargeable  portion  of 
the  fee.  But  the  price  of  avoiding  those  disputes  is  to 
reduce  the  financial  contribution  the  union  will  receive 
even when a special assessment pays only for unexpected 
but  perfectly  legitimate  collective-bargaining  expenses. 
See supra, at 8–10. 

Moreover,  to  provide  a  new  opportunity  to  object  re-
quires providing for explanations, potential challenges, the 
development of separate accounts, and additional adminis-
trative procedures.  That means providing extra time and 
extra money.  By definition, however, special assessments
are special; time may matter; and unlike the annual dues
payment, the union is unlikely to be able to provide what 
is  here  a  6-month  delay  (between  the  close  of  the  2004
audited year and the beginning of the next mid-2005 dues 
year)  that  can  be  used  to  examine  accounts  and  process