Conceptually, the issue is not the "right-to-work" allowing workers to decide if they want to join a union or not, but rather the fact that non-joiners get the same benefits- the free-rider issue so well outlined above. Unions can be as exploitative as the companies/corporations: we've seen that. What is needed here is an understanding that if you are part of a union and that union has bargained a fair wage/benefits/work-time contract, non-joiners should not be able to tap into the benefits. They must take ownership's base offer and live with it (inadequate as it probably is). So, it's not the idea that people should not have choice, but their choice should matter and if they choose to walk the lonely path, they take all the risks. Then, it's balanced.
Conceptually, the issue is not the "right-to-work" allowing workers to decide if they want to join a union or not, but rather the fact that non-joiners get the same benefits- the free-rider issue so well outlined above. Unions can be as exploitative as the companies/corporations: we've seen that. What is needed here is an understanding that if you are part of a union and that union has bargained a fair wage/benefits/work-time contract, non-joiners should not be able to tap into the benefits. They must take ownership's base offer and live with it (inadequate as it probably is). So, it's not the idea that people should not have choice, but their choice should matter and if they choose to walk the lonely path, they take all the risks. Then, it's balanced.