I dont really understand whats wrong with "Right to work". Why does everyone in a union shop have to be in the union? Even if the union does a bad job for you, its basically impossible to get rid of the union. The problem I see with a non "Right to work" state is that once a union is established it has little need/desire to actually represent its employees because members cannot leave. The union has a monopoly of sorts on "representing" the employees and establishes a confrontational attitude with management in order to justify its own existence.
What's wrong with "right to work" is that the core value of collective bargaining is that many powerless individuals gain power through numbers. "right to work" eliminates those numbers. That's the theory, anyway. Here's what I know - I worked a non-union show in a right-to-work state that flipped but because of the rules, despite my 8-year IATSE local membership the rules shoved me into the International. So all my friends that had a mailing address in California made twice as much as me, got four times the money marked into their pension, and got their hours counted. Meanwhile, the fuckin' International mandated that I needed to buy into a $1500/mo insurance policy unless I opted out through two notarized certified mail letters that had to be overnighted. And that was with my local going to bat against my international. Without the local, the International would have actually ended up taking my money for a duplicate insurance policy that I couldn't have opted out of. That's an effect of right-to-work - competing unions get to fuck you harder. At least with a Union state there are fewer sharks chewing on your toes.
The girl told me what's wrong with "right to work" is that it means that the union will have to legally represent anyone in the shop even if those people don't pay dues. The big thing that unions spend their money on is representing people legally. Legal costs are very expensive. If the union has to represent people who don't pay dues, the unions will be bled dry paying for legal fees for people who may not have even ever paid into the union. She says it'll be a slow, several year death, but ultimately, will kill the unions.
Ive heard of this argument as well but I dont actually understand what kind of legal representation the union has to offer a non represented employee and what kind of representation it offers a represented one. Ive never actually heard of anyone ever getting a union lawyer for anything. The only time I have heard of union lawyers is when the union sues the company for breach of the union contract and almost always the union either looses or wins no significant victory.