Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

This is not correct, not even close. As others have pointed out, there is a difference between a contractual employment agreement and what is considered a "right to work" state. The misnomer "right to work" stems from the Taft-Hartley Act (1947) which was enacted to prevent agreements between companies and unions coercing employees, as a condition of continued employment, to become members of a trade union (and therefore pay dues). There are variations among the states on the level of prohibition on the requirements of union membership and dues mandated. None of these, however, interfere with the basic Constitutional right of "freedom to contract." A contract can be formed between consenting parties on just about any conceivable subject, provided it does not violate public policy or any laws (also cannot be unconscionable). Also required is a benefit to both sides with mutual voluntary consent.