When it comes to a discussion about right-to-work, and whether Missouri should adopt that idea as its labor policy, you can expect organized labor and the group Americans for Prosperity to be on clearly opposite sides of the debate.
But they do seem to agree on one thing: Missourians should let their lawmakers know how they feel.
"Our over-arching goal all summer long, as we've knocked on doors and made phone calls, (has been) to educate citizens why this is right for our state," Rachel Payton, AFP-Missouri's deputy director, explained last week.
"In turn, we hope those citizens will take the opportunity to speak with their lawmakers and either thank them for their original "yes' vote or, if they were a "no' vote, to encourage them to override the governor's veto."
Missouri AFL-CIO Director Mike Lewis said last week: "We're more of a grassroots type of organization. ... Our greatest tool is the fact that our members talk about this, and our member-to-member education has been a tremendous asset for us."
And the two groups are approaching their statewide campaigns differently.
AFP announced a "six-figure" ad buy, mainly for commercials to run on television stations around Missouri, explaining the group's perspective that the state's economy will improve if labor unions and employers can't negotiate contracts that require an employee to join a union or, at least, pay a fee to a union for contract negotiations and other activities on behalf of employees.
Lewis said labor is focused on a social media and word-of-mouth effort to get people to call their lawmakers.
Right-to-work supporters say changing the state's law will help create more well-paying jobs, and keep more people - especially young people - in the state.
"People (and businesses) want to come to states where it looks like it's going to be a good economic forecast - not to states where it's going to be not a good forecast," Payton said. "Right-to-work is one of those things we can do to help change Missouri and get us back on the right path."
But, Lewis said, "While companies do have criteria to look at before they move to a new state, right-to-work is not even in the top 10 of their criteria, most of the time.
"It's things like education, roads - climate even rates above right-to-work."
Lewis also said one study shows "a union worker makes $2,600 annually more (on average) than people in a right-to-work state."
The National Right to Work Committee - which concentrates on the issue and is a different group from Payton's Americans for Prosperity - talks about "right-to-work" states and "forced unionism" states.
Currently in the United States, according to the national committee, it's half and half - Missouri, Illinois and Kentucky are among 25 states without a right-to-work law, while most of Missouri's neighbors - Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee have the law.
Payton said in the non-right-to-work states, labor organizations "write their contracts so that they can be the only bargaining unit for those people."
But, where the law has been changed, unions "are forced to provide services to their members and they have to fight for those members and provide them with even better services."
But, Payton said, the unions "could write their contracts differently if we became a right-to-work state and not include those (non-union) people. They would not be forced to represent them."
Lewis countered, thanks to a 1978 court ruling, the law already says a person can't be forced to join a union to get or keep a job - although that person still might have to pay some dues or fees to a union.
"Not all collective bargaining agreements have a union security clause," Lewis explained, "but if there is a union security clause in a contract between a union and a company, and you get hired at that company, your option is to only pay for the part of the dues that is used strictly for representation in contract negotiations, grievances and representation of the employees.
"And that's usually a significantly less amount."
Payton and other right-to-work supporters say even that requirement goes too far.
"They're not a "free rider' but a "forced rider' - they're forced into that position," Payton said.
Still, she said, supporting a right-to-work law "is not an anti-union position, because it doesn't do anything to ban unions and doesn't do anything to prevent people from joining unions, if they so choose. It just gives people the actual choice to join a union, instead of being compelled to join."
Lawmakers last spring passed a bill that, among its provisions, says no one can be required to become a member of a labor organization or pay dues, fees or other similar charges to a labor organization, as a condition or continuation of employment.
The bill says any agreement that violates an employee's rights, as specified in the law, "will be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect."
Also, anyone who violates the law's provisions will be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor crime.
Any person who is "injured" by a violation, or threatened violation, of the law is allowed to recover all resulting damages, including court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill, and the right-to-work supporters' campaign is intended to get the Legislature to override that veto.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the membership in each chamber - at least 23 votes in the Senate and 109 votes in the House - to override a governor's veto and make something a law.
While the right-to-work bill passed in both chambers, the Senate's 21 votes was two short of the number needed for an override, and the House had 92 "yes" votes - 17 short of the override number.
"We are definitely going to try" to get the needed two-thirds majority for a successful override, Payton said.
Lewis is "cautiously optimistic (but) very, very concerned" about the outcome of the voting on Sept. 16, the first day of the Legislature's annual veto session.