Well there is an argument that goes like this:

The "Right to Work" laws are unconstitutional because they amount to a taking.

This is a law,” says Marquette Law Professor Paul Secunda, “that compels one private party to provide benefits to another private party with no compensation.” He is convinced that right-to-work laws, which permit represented workers to quit their union and stop paying fees while simultaneously obligating that union to continue to spend resources representing them, are an unconstitutional “taking.”

Article here: http://www.alternet.org/labor/legal-argument-could-overturn-right-work-laws-around-country

One problem with the argument is that "takings" are generally construed to be properties. They are trying to get into Federal Court so that if successful it would change the National Labor Relations Board rules and regulations and it would automatically supervine the statues in 26 states.

:-|

Unions are the only means workers (which is about 90% of the population, past, present, or future) have of protecting themselves from the predations of management. — Bitter Crank

And yet, as you say, only 11.1% of the workforce is unionized, but all these other folks have jobs that are just as good or better than those held by those in unions. This would mean that the unions aren't necessary.

It would seem that if the average worker has the right to unionize but chooses not to, then he would only have himself to blame if he is abused by management. Why are you insisting that he purchase a protection he has indicated he doesn't want?

Let's also not pretend that the unions have done a good job representing the employees. Unions, like all organizations, are much better at helping themselves than in helping others. Although it's doubtful that I would choose to join a union even if it was on the up and up, I'd certainly not join one that I felt was using its money and influence to help the union bosses and leadership.

And yet, as you say, only 11.1% of the workforce is unionized, but all these other folks have jobs that are just as good or better than those held by those in unions. This would mean that the unions aren't necessary. — Hanover

How do unionized work places become non-unionized? Take Hormel's Austin, MN plant -- core of the $9 bn meat processing and food business, home of SPAM. Around 1984 Hormel cut the wages of it's union employees from $10.69 to $8.25 per hour--this in an industry with one of the highest injury and disability rates. (Slaughtering and preparing meat for wholesale is hard, hot, difficult work conducted on slippery floors with slippery hands holding sharp knives, rotary saws, chain saws, and other power tools. The injury rate in many meatpacking plans is above 100% -- that is, all workers will experience at least one significant injuries at least once per hear.

Hormel had negotiated a 'cut clause with the national union, UFCW, which then subverted the workers understanding that they were signing a "no cuts" contract. The workers struck, the company hired scabs (otherwise known as strikebreakers, or "people who want to work"), the Democratic Farm-Labor governor Rudy Perpich called out the MN National Guard to prevent the workers from blocking the plant gates. The local P9 of the UFCW received a lot of support from other unions and nonunion workers--from everybody, basically, except their parent UFCW union. The strikers lost. Wages at the plant were cut. Further, all of the other benefits the union had offered its members (dealing with work place and safety issues) were lost. The P9 local was dead.

Over time, the workforce became largely hispanic, probably including quite a few illegal aliens, for whom $8.25 (and less) represented a much better wage than they could get in Mexico.

It would seem that if the average worker has the right to unionize but chooses not to, then he would only have himself to blame if he is abused by management. Why are you insisting that he purchase a protection he has indicated he doesn't want? — Hanover

Labor law has placed numerous and difficult obstacles in the way of organizing a union in an unorganized work place. Further, employers tend to undertake negative campaigns against unionization, and use intimidation as a tactic to discourage votes to unionize. Only in already -unionized work places can an individual "choose" to join -- or pay fair-share dues.

Let's also not pretend that the unions have done a good job representing the employees. — Hanover

I agree completely -- many national unions officials have engaged in disgraceful, corrupted behavior or have gotten into bed with the executives of their members' workplaces and have enthusiastically prostituted themselves in whatever passive, catcher, position was requested.

Unions, like all organizations, are much better at helping themselves than in helping others. Although it's doubtful that I would choose to join a union even if it was on the up and up, I'd certainly not join one that I felt was using its money and influence to help the union bosses and leadership. — Hanover

You might join a union, but I would be quite surprised if you did.

Unions fail their members in 3 ways:

1. Sometimes they actively work against the obvious best interests of their members (like the United Food and Commercial Workers Union did for meatpackers)
2. Sometimes they become corrupted, are infiltrated by organized crime, and steal their members' dues (the Teamsters, Jimmy Hoffa, and the Central States Pension Fund). If you happen to dig up an identified body, it might be Jimmy. He was knocked off by his criminal friends.
3. They become lazy and unable to lead workers, inspire confidence, or organize a strong attack on low wages, wage cuts, unsafe and abusive working conditions, discrimination, and so on.

All of this, and more, causes some workers to become disheartened. Most workers, though, are victims of company propaganda campaigns designed to discredit every aspect of labor organization.

Rights are conferred by governments on people.

The right to work is a good thing.

Without work you cannot eat.

Without eating you cannot survive.

Without work you cannot eat. — YIOSTHEOY

Yes, but that's not what "right to work" means. "Right to work" is shorthand for "anti-union".

Workers should be free to chose to join the union or not.

I like freedom.

I hate slavery.

Right, here too. As the old Industrial Workers of the World slogan goes, "no need for slaves, no room for masters." Also, "No gods No masters."

Workers are free to join / not join a union, but then, if they work in a union shop, don't want to belong, why should they get the wages the union bargained for? And why should employers be allowed to interfere with workers organizing? After all, labor produces all wealth.

You bring up a lot of issues that I think would be best treated separately, Bitter.

When it comes to Right to Work legislation, I would say that it's unfair to labor unions and so shouldn't be law. Everyone at a workplace with a union benefits from union activity. And unions have to represent everyone fairly in a workplace, whether they actually become members or not. In my experience the non-members drained union resources more often than members by demanding help more often than the members -- so I'm more than happy to ensure that the union actually has the resources to have enough staff to process said issues, rather than having all the responsibility without having the resources to hire the staff necessary to run a traditional business-style union. They're going to use our resources either way, and benefit from union activity either way -- so it's only fair that they pay for union activity rather than let a group of people do all the work for them.

In an idealistic sense I can see why RtW laws are attractive. You think, before you do this, that people are generally decent and they'll actually contribute once they see the benefits and that this will provide pressure for unions to represent their members better -- but that just ain't so. I heard enough people say to me, "If you're going to help me anyways, why should I pay for it?" when talking union in a RtW state to know it. Also, even with RtW, the thing that keeps a union representative isn't financial pressure but participation. If people participate then the union is representative -- by withdrawing dues you actually make it easier for people to not participate, and thereby let a union be run by fewer people, making it less representative.