not sure I follow you. Even in right to work states you are bound by the labor contract regardless of whether or not you pay dues or are in the union.
right to work negates the union's ability to collectively bargain, as people will simply opt out in hopes of continuing to receive the union's benefits.
why does the government have to step in and negate a contract between an employer and a collective of laborers? i thought republicans were all for that sort of thing. you know, laissez-faire, keep big gubmint out of my life
"right to work" is orwellian doublespeak. everyone should have the right to work at, at the least, a living wage. however, the republican version of "right to work" is simply "purposefully removing the ability to organize, and most certainly not guaranteeing any sort of actual right to work"