I've talked to more than a few former and present labor union members (I'm not including anyone from public employee unions as they're a different case) about Right to Work laws and they've been pretty evenly split. For those who still think unions are the end-all and be-all I have asked them these two questions:
If unions are so great then why do they need closed-shop rules in order to survive?In the WSJ opinion piece linked above, more than a few pro-union commenters kept up the same mantra: “Yeah, right to work means right to work for less!” One kept harroping, using the same 'statistic' over and over again, that many RTW states had lower per capita incomes than union states. But his 'proof' was blown out of the water when more than a few RTW supporters showed this drone that while that might be the case, the cost of living was also considerably lower in those same states, and the net balance between income and cost of living in RTW and union states was close to zero.
Since unions operate more like a business, shouldn't they be held to the same economic rules, being that if they are good at what they do and add value for their members they'll survive, and if they don't they won't?
I've also argued that unions should have to sell themselves to potential members, just like any organization. They shouldn't be dependent upon rules that would make guys like Al Capone green with envy for the amount of money collected in “dues”. (I liken it more to paying protection money, at least from my experiences being in a closed shop.) If they can't make the sale because they aren't offering anything of value to potential members, then maybe they've outlived their usefulness and should fold.