Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

4 

KNOX v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

chargeable percentage for the fee-year 2006–2007.  Id., at 
158.  Since  political  expenditures  during  calendar  year 
2005 turned out to be lower than in 2004, the new charge-
able  share  amounted  to  about  69%  of  the  total  fee  bill. 
Ibid. 

Simplifying  further  to  illustrate,  I  shall  describe  the
system  as  (1)  using  audited  accounts  for  Year  One  to 
determine  the  proportion  of  the  fee  that  objectors  must 
pay  during  Year  Two,  and  (2)  using  audited  accounts  for 
Year  Two  to  determine  the  proportion  of  the  fee  that  ob-
jectors  must  pay  during  Year  Three.    If  Year  One’s 
chargeable share (as applied to Year Two) turns out to be 
too high, Year Two’s audited accounts will reflect that fact, 
and  the  payable  share  for  Year  Three  will  be  reduced 
accordingly.

This  system  does  not  put  typical  objectors  to  any  dis-
  If,  say,  in  Year  One  total  expenses  were
advantage.
$1  million,  collective-bargaining  expenses  amounted  to 
$600,000,  and  political  expenses  amounted  to  $400,000,
then the union cannot charge objecting nonmembers more
than  60%  of  normal  dues  in  Year  Two.  If  in  Year  Two 
collective-bargaining  expenses  turned  out  to  be  a  lesser 
share  of  total  expenses,  say  30%,  then  the  union  cannot 
charge  objecting  nonmembers  more  than  30%  of  the  total 
fee in Year Three.  Normally, what the objecting nonmem-
bers lose on the swings they will gain on the roundabouts. 
This  kind  of  basic  administrative  system  is  imperfect.
The  nature  of  a  union’s  expenditures,  including  non-
chargeable political expenditures, varies from year to year, 
for  political  needs  differ  at  different  stages  of  political 
cycles.  Thus,  last  year’s  percentages  will  often  fail  to
match this year’s expenditures patterns.  And the possibil-
ity  that  an  objecting  nonmember’s  funds  will  temporarily 
help  the  union  pay  for  a  nonchargeable  political  expendi-
ture (say, in Year Two) is always present—though in this 
case that did not happen.  See infra, at 6–7.