I'm torn on the whole "Right to work" issue.
On the one hand, I live in the land of the "you can't replace a light switch in your own house without calling an electrician" union. I've played at convention centers where a friend was told he couldn't plug his boom box into a wall socket without a union member doing it for him (for $65 or something like that). The kind of union where the "qualified professional" has to inform us that his parole officer won't let him carry a knife, so we need to cut the tail off that bowline ourselves.
On the other hand, Wal*Mart employees NEED a frickin' union. So do teachers. In many cases, it's not that the union members are overpaid, it's that the corporation is exploiting a labor force suffering historically high unemployment.
How is it possible that organizations that brought us things like "the weekend" and "sick days" are now responsible for the image of one construction worker actually shoveling while 14 overpaid guys stand around talking?
With Right-To-Work laws, there's logic on both sides. Without them, you don't need to join a union to get a job– that's fair –but you still have to pay their dues if your salary's been affected by their efforts? Sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like how Homeowner's Associations justify their shitty existence (we collectively bargain with the utilities… now cut your grass and paint your trim this color or we'll put a lien on your house).
It's hard to support anyone that smells like an HOA, and yet an unorganized labor force always leads back to the same place: sweatshops.
Maybe if we could strike down Right-To-Work laws and at the same time pass the Union Non-Douchebag Act of 2013, I'd be in a more comfortable place on this issue.