Framing is of course important, but I cringe just a little when people use the free rider framing against “right to work” because free rider problems and “tragedy of the commons” arguments in general seem to find uses most often in cases for right of center causes. Same for appeals to contractually defined rights. I sometimes invoke contractarian ideas, but with the understanding that I regard contracts as a bug rather than a feature of the status quo. Show me a contract between a business and an individual that was not collectively negotiated (collectively bargained) and I’ll show you a very one-sided boilerplate. Basically, I don’t like that some employers insist on privacy-invasive practices such as unwarranted piss tests or credit checks, but to vote with my feet against the practice would mean limiting the number of openings for which I would be willing to apply, and I’m simply not established enough to be able to afford to be picky about that, so I just have to suck it up and sign a lot of application boilerplate that makes me puke. Some workplaces happen to be union shop (or “closed shop,” as the dishonest types who use dishonest terms like “right to work” prefer to call it). If you have a problem with that then, as the laissez-faire types like to say disparagingly whenever anyone brings up a genuine worker rights concern, “nobody’s holding a gun to your head.”
That being said, I do understand the importance of being able to argue your cases in terms of principles central to your opponents, as well as the difference between arguing before the water cooler and arguing before the Supreme Court.