This except was taken from Wikipedia.
Arguments for Proponents of right-to-work laws point to the Constitutional right to freedom of association, as well as the common-law principle of private ownership of property. They argue that workers should be free to join unions and to refrain, and thus sometimes refer to non-right-to-work states as “forced unionism” states.
Some of the most compelling arguments come from analysis of the data. Northwestern University economist Thomas Holmes, now at University of Minnesota, “compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.” 
Some contend that it is unfair that unions can require new and existing employees to become union members and pay costly membership dues for services they may not want or are philosophically opposed to. These contracts that require all employees to be union members are also known as a union security agreement and require all employees to either join the union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. Furthermore, proponents point out that generally forced-union dues are used to support predominantly American-left political causes.
Due to other similarities between states which have passed right-to-work laws, it is difficult to analyze these laws by comparing states; for instance, right-to-work states often have a number strong pro-business policies, making it difficult to disentangle the effect of right-to-work laws. A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why “Texas is prospering while Ohio lags”. According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas gained 1,615,000 new jobs. The opinon piece proposed several possible reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.
Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek endorsed right-to-work laws, writing:
If legislation, jurisdiction, and the tolerance of executive agencies had not created privileges for the unions, the need for special legislation concerning them would probably not have arisen in common-law countries. But, once special privileges have become part of the law of the land, they can be removed only by special legislation. Though there ought to be no need for special ‘right-to-work laws,’ it is difficult to deny that the situation created in the United States by legislation and by the decisions of the Supreme Court may make special legislation the only practicable way of restoring the principles of freedom. Footnote: Such legislation, to be consistent with our principles, should not go beyond declaring certain contracts invalid, which is sufficient for removing all pretext to action to obtain them. It should not, as the title of the ‘right-to-work laws’ may suggest, give individuals a claim to a particular job, or even (as some of the laws in force in certain American states do) confer a right to damages for having denied a particular job, when the denial is not illegal on other grounds. The objections against such provisions are the same as those that apply to ‘fair employment practices’ laws.
 Arguments against Opponents argue right-to-work laws create a free-rider problem, in which non-union employees (who are bound by the terms of the union contract even though they are not members of the union) benefit from collective bargaining without paying union dues.
The AFL/CIO union argues that because unions are weakened by these laws, wages are lowered and worker safety and health is endangered. For these reasons, the union refers to right-to-work states as “right to work for less” states  or “right-to-fire” states, and to non-right-to-work states as “free collective bargaining” states.
Business interests led by the Chamber of Commerce lobbied extensively for right-to-work legislation in the Southern states. Critics from organized labor have argued since the late 1970s that while the National Right to Work Committee purports to engage in grass-roots lobbying on behalf of the “little guy”, the National Right to Work Committee was formed by a group of southern businessmen with the express purpose of fighting unions, and that they “added a few workers for the purpose of public relations”.
The unions also contend that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has received millions of dollars in grants from foundations controlled by major U.S. industrialists like the New York-based Olin Foundation, Inc., which grew out of a family manufacturing business, and other groups.
 U.S. states with right-to-work laws
Right-to-work states shown by the following 22 states are right-to-work states:
In addition, the territory of Guam also has right-to-work laws, and employees of the US Federal Government have the right to choose whether or not to join their respective unions.
† An employee’s right-to-work is established under the state Constitution, not under legislative action.
 See also At-will employment
 References1.^ “Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?”. National Right To Work. http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
2.^ NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement 2006-2012: Art. V, Sec. 1 (agency shop).
3.^ Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Int’l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407, 414 (1976) (Marshall, J.).
4.^ Orr v. National Football League Players Ass’n, 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2224, 1993 WL 604063 (Va.Cir.Ct. 1993).
5.^ StopTeacher Strikes.org “Right-to-Work vs. Forced Unionism”
6.^ Wall Street Journal, Harvard Economist Robert Barro
7.^ Improvement #3: Remove Union Security Clauses Mackinac Center for Public Policy
8.^ Williams, Bob (2002-06-20). “The Use of Mandatory Union Dues for Politics: A Lesson from Washington State” (Pdf). Congressional Testimony. http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/107th/wp/uniondues62002/williams.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-10. [dead link]
9.^ Holmes, Thomas J. (1998). “The Effect of State Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Evidence from State Borders”. Journal of Political Economy 106 (4): 667–705. doi:10.1086/250026.
10.^ Texas v. Ohio, The Wall Street Journal, March 3, 2008. Accessed July 18, 2008.
11.^ Carney, Timothy (2011-02-23) A strong argument in favor of Right to Work (featuring F.A. Hayek), Washington Examiner
12.^ a b c “The South Carolina Governance Project — Interest Groups in South Carolina,” Center for Governmental Services, Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, University of South Carolina, Accessed July 6, 2007.
13.^ http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110114/NEWS/101140396/-1/NEWSMAP retrieved January 14, 2011
14.^ a b Greenhouse, Steven (January 3, 2011). “States Seek Laws to Curb Power of Unions”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/business/04labor.html?pagewanted=2.
15.^ http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work/ retrieved July 22, 2010
16.^ Miller, Berkeley; Canak, William (1991). “From ‘Porkchoppers’ to ‘Lambchoppers’: The Passage of Florida’s Public Employee Relations Act”. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 44 (2): 349–66. doi:10.2307/2524814. JSTOR 2524814.
17.^ Partridge, Dane M. (1997). “Virginia’s New Ban on Public Employee Bargaining: A Case Study of Unions, Business, and Political Competition”. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 10 (2): 127–39. doi:10.1023/A:1025657412651.
18.^ Canak, William; Miller, Berkeley (1990). “Gumbo Politics: Unions, Business, and Louisiana Right-to-Work Legislation”. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43 (2): 258–71. doi:10.2307/2523703. JSTOR 2523703.
19.^ a b http://www.library.gsu.edu/dlib/iam/getBrandedPDF.asp?issue_id=1883%5Bdead link] “Examining the opposition’s tangled web — the who’s who in the right wing” The Machinist, published by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO/CLC, October 1977; accessed February 4, 2008
20.^ a b http://www.uawlocal3520.org/right%20to%20workfliner.pdf%5Bdead link] “Questions and Answers about the National Right to Work Committee and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation,” United Auto Workers, Accessed February 3, 2008.
21.^ “National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation,” Media Transparency, Accessed July 24, 2007.
22.^ “John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.”, Media Transparency, Accessed July 24, 2007.
BOTTOM LINE NOTE: Initially, most people will view the “RIGHT TO WORK” as an implied right for employees, however that is a misnomer, as the fact of the matter is that when the concept is applied to Law, the only rights are with the employers, as it grants them a carte blanche privilege to hire and fire anyone without providing any reason. So, support of “the Right to Work Law” is basically an abdication of an employees (ie day in court) opportunity to a reasonable explanation of their job performance and retention. Personally, as an employee I would be against that kind of arbitrary work environment, yet as an employer, if I can hire and fire with impunity, al’s the well! What do you think?