Yes, right-to-work is a better situation for employees than forced union membership. While unions are supposed to act in the best interest of the employees, they also operate off of dues taken from employee pay check. So requiring a person to join a union is forcing them to pay expenses that may not be of any benefit to them.
Yes, the right to work is a better side for employees as opposed to joining a labor union, because the unions should have to prove that they are doing something for the employees in order to take the money. Labor unions are a bunch of bullies and thugs. They drive employee prices up too high.
Right-to-work is basically a modern serfdom. As a union worker, you get some say in your wages and benefits. Without a union, you take what you get or get nothing at all. In the end, union membership means higher wages for union workers, which means those workers have more to spend. That money circulates through the economy, benefitting everyone while increasing consumer demand and boosting the economy. If you want to see how union-busting works out economically, take a look at Wisconsin, where Gov. Walker took benefits away from workers. Wisconsin is now consistently in the bottom percentiles in economic and job growth, because his attack on union workers translated to an attack on consumer demand.
I honestly believe both of these things are bad for employees because businesses work against employees when there is a right-to-work and unions generally cause problems for employees when they are used. When we look at the problems in the work place now it is a matter of two bad choices. I would say at this point that unions would be better for employees.