Posted by Robert Dilley on January 07, 2006 at 02:40:59 from 216.211.6.209 user rdilley.
Here goes the pedantry again.
Right-to-Work laws do not forbid strikes (though the governments that introduce RtW laws are quite likely to pass no-strike laws as well).
The basic principle of RtW laws is that no-one can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. You can still have unions; but if a whole bunch of workers decide they will do better bargaining individually they are free to do so. If the union calls a strike, the non-unionised members go on working (hence "Right to Work"). Naturally, this does nothing to strengthen unions (and helps explain why only about 12% of US labour is unionised).
In Ontario workplaces may or may not be unionised, at the discretion of the workers. If it is unionised, workers are not obliged to join the union if they have an ethical or other objection to doing so, but they are governed by contracts negotiated by the union and must pay a fee to the union equal to union dues (known as the Rand Formula after the judge who formulated it.)
There have been some interesting battles when Wal-Mart employees in Canada have attempted to unionise (against Wal-Mart's religion). In one Quebec town, Wal-Mart closed its store after the employees had a successful union drive.
My university faculty body has been unionised to general satisfaction for 25 years with only a handful (usually Engineers or Foresters) refusing to join (oddly, sone Engineers are among the strongest union supporters).
Not sure what relevance this has to AR, other than to note a conviction that he would have been a strong supporter of sensible unions (and a strong critic of some of the sillier ones). (Noted by a past Faculty Union President and member of its Executive for all 25 years).