I seriously question the statistics they cite.
Lower wages. Workers in the states with these laws make about $5,538 less a year than workers in other states. That means states without them have better family incomes and stronger state and local tax bases.
Did they adjust the wages for the cost of living standards in each state? Probably not. $50,000/year is poverty level by Silicon Valley standards, but you can comfortably raise a family of four on $50K/year in many southern states which also happen to be RTW.
Weaker safety and health standards. The rate of workplace deaths, for example, is 52.9 percent higher in states with these laws, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, because unions are weaker and less able to demand better for workers.
Right to work states will inevitably have more people working in industrial conditions than non-right to work states. That's the whole point. Ergo, there will be more workplace accidents in those types of jobs.
Fewer people with health care. In states with these laws, 16.7 percent lack health insurance, compared with 13.5 percent in other states.
Okay, but what does that have to do with right to work? Correlate the statistics with traditionally unionized industries and then we'll talk.
More poverty. The poverty rate in these states averages 14.5 percent, compared with 12.7 percent in other states.
Another red herring. I could counter with the fact that Michigan is one of the most impoverished states in the country and also one of the most heavily unionized.