> Right to work is about being able to force you to join a union to work at a place

Isn't it more accurately described as forcing a union to give you the negotiated benefits without requiring you to pay dues? I don't think anybody, on either side of the issue, is under any illusions, it is intended to break unions.

Honestly I'm not entirely sure, possibly because it probably varies by state. My understanding was that the main thing it did was make it so that you didn't have to join the union and pay dues to them to be able to get a job at a workplace. I'm not sure if it requires that you get the same benefits or not but I'd definitely agree the intent is to cripple union's bargaining power and resources.

And, I thought basically all states were at will, except sort of Montana?

Correct

At-will is per job and most states allow that sort of arrangment: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-e...

Right-to-work is a specific anti-union campaign: https://www.nrtw.org/right-to-work-states/

You are right; thank you. (And that is not such a small correction, since I did not just use the wrong phrase, but used a phrase that means something totally different in the same domain.) I am now outside the edit window, so unfortunately cannot fix it.