Why wait until the 25th hour? Here is when you should make your case.

The Case Against the 25th-Hour Speech: A Modern Perspective on Union Election Strategies

Article By Harrison Rose Tate

Workers voluntarily listen as an executive delivers a 25th hour speech in an industrial setting.

OPINION: The 25th hour speech has been a staple of labor relations for a half century or more. Yet, recent examples and advancements in understanding human psychology suggest that earlier and more deliberate communication is both more effective and less damaging to employer-employee relations.

---

It's 2025. Let's take a look at 25th hour speeches.

If you’ve ever watched a union election from the sidelines, you’ve certainly heard of the infamous "25th-hour speech." It’s a last-ditch effort, a Hail Mary, and frankly, it might be time we retire it.

Why? Because modern psychology and real-world examples from the past few years make one thing clear: Today's changing workforce doesn't buy into a rushed, last-minute plea. A speech that screams, “We should have said this weeks ago” isn’t going to change minds. Instead, employees respond to communication that feels thoughtful, timely, and—most importantly—authentic. Let’s unpack why the 25th-hour speech may not be the best approach—and what employers could be doing instead.

What Is the 25th-Hour Speech, Anyway?

Most companies adopt a stance of remaining union-free to maintain direct relationships with employees and avoid the complexities introduced by third-party representation. The 25th-hour speech is traditionally employed as a final opportunity for employers to influence employees to vote “no” to unionization, prior to the legal restriction on communications within the 24-hour period preceding a union election. 

While the 25^th hour speech was once considered a critical step, recent examples and advancements in understanding human psychology suggest that earlier and more deliberate communication is both more effective and less damaging to ongoing employer-employee relations.

Here's why. 

Cognitive Bias and Human Psychology Support Earlier Appeals

Principles of human psychology and cognitive bias indicate that earlier appeals are more effective than a last-minute 25th-hour speech in influencing employee decision-making.

• Research shows that cognitive biases, such as the anchoring effect and the recency effect, favor messages that are delivered early and repeated consistently. This builds trust and allows employees time to process information rationally.
  
  
• Studies in industrial psychology emphasize the importance of addressing employee concerns through timely communication rather than last-minute appeals that may be perceived as desperate or insincere.
  
  
• Earlier communication gives the human brain time to shift from emotional responses (such as frustration or anger stoked by union campaigns) to a more rational evaluation of the company’s message.
  
  
• Consistent messaging reinforces key points.
  
  
• In most industries, and in today’s diverse and often hybrid work environments, it is increasingly more difficult or impossible to assemble the entire group to deliver a 25th-hour address. An earlier address allows time for employees who missed the initial address to be included in the messaging through follow-ups or other methods.
  
  
• Since unions will deliver constant messages throughout the pre-election phase, this approach provides a counterbalance to their persuasiveness.

 A 25th-hour speech often backfires by alienating employees who view it as a superficial or panicked response. Trust and credibility are built over time, and earlier engagement allows for a more meaningful dialogue between management and employees. Additionally, it provides employees with the necessary time to consider whether unionization aligns with their personal goals and circumstances.

Some Recent Anecdotes Highlighting 25th-Hour Speech Ineffectiveness

Recent examples from major corporations demonstrate the ineffectiveness of 25th-hour speeches in achieving their intended outcomes.

• December 2024: A Fortune 500 company with over 35,000 employees recently acquired a small group of less than 20 employees. During the acquisition, it was understood that the new corporation’s standardized pay scales would result in raises for the group. However, the employees were also informed that their benefits would inevitably be reduced to align with the corporation’s standard offerings. Additionally, the union carefully avoided over-promising, acknowledging that significant changes to these conditions were unlikely. Despite the small size of the group, which severely limited their bargaining leverage, and the practical reasons for avoiding unionization, the union had months to sway them. When the 25th-hour speech was finally delivered by a well-respected manager, employees dismissed it as "too little too late."

• October 2024: A Fortune 500 company with over 20,000 employees faced a leadership crisis in one plant. The 25th-hour speeches not only failed to sway employees but seemed to galvanize pro-union sentiment, resulting in an increase in support for unionization.

These cases illustrate that today’s employees value authenticity and early engagement. A rushed, last-minute speech does little to address underlying issues and often exacerbates employee dissatisfaction. Moreover, employees are often more influenced by consistent communication and genuine attempts to address their concerns than by reactive or defensive appeals. These outcomes not only underscore the limitations of 25th-hour speeches but also highlight the potential for long-term damage to employee relations and company reputation when concerns are inadequately addressed.

Risks Associated with the 25th-Hour Speech

The 25th-hour speech carries significant risks that can not only negatively impact the union election, but even damage the company’s credibility and further alienate employees.

• Perceived Insincerity: Employees often view last-minute speeches as disingenuous or manipulative, especially when concerns have been ignored or inadequately addressed earlier in the process.
  
  
• Backlash: A poorly executed 25th-hour speech can lead to increased support for unionization, as seen in the October 2024 example.
• 
  
• Legal and Ethical Risks: Missteps in these speeches, such as implied threats or misinformation, can result in unfair labor practice (ULP) charges, legal challenges or damage to the company’s reputation.

1. Analysis: The risks associated with the 25th-hour speech outweigh its potential benefits. By shifting to earlier communication, companies can mitigate these risks and create a more constructive dialogue with employees.
   
   

Alternative Proposal

The 25th-hour speech could be replaced with a "pre-election corporate-to-employee address," delivered early in the union campaign process. This strategy leverages insights from labor relations experts and psychological principles to foster trust and address employee concerns proactively.

The Pre-Election Corporate-to-Employee Address

Implementation:

• Shortly after labor relations counsel is obtained, a team of experts (attorneys, consultants, etc.) is deployed to investigate the root causes of the union drive.
  
  
• Management and supervisor interviews typically occur early-on. This gives the team an opportunity to assess why the union has gained traction, and what the core grievances are. 
  
  
• Based on the team's findings, corporate leadership delivers an address that acknowledges employee concerns, apologizes for missteps, and emphasizes a preference for maintaining a direct relationship with employees rather than involving a third party.

Benefits:

• Credibility: Demonstrates that the company is listening and taking employee feedback seriously.
  
  
• Consultant Support: Strengthens the consultants' credibility, and their ability to build a persuasive case for "no" votes throughout the campaign.
  
  
• Cognitive Processing Time: For individuals to fully transition from an emotionally charged state to thoroughly rational decision-making, especially on complex issues like unionization, science tells us the process may take several days to weeks. 
  
  
• Scientifically Proven: Studies on decision fatigue and rational evaluation indicate that repeated exposure to consistent, credible information helps individuals process and weigh their options rationally over time.
  
  
• Adequate Opportunity for Shifting Mindsets: Cognitive processing and emotional regulation theories have proven it takes time for the human brain to shift from emotional responses to rational decision-making, such as addressing concerns about union dues and representation.
  
  
• Countering Union Persuasion: Early communication helps address and dispel union propaganda and coercive messaging before it has time to take hold, giving employees a balanced perspective to make informed decisions.
  
  
• Continuous Dialogue: Prevents the company’s silence from being perceived as indifference or neglect.
  
  
• Enhanced Morale: Signals to employees that their concerns are being heard and addressed promptly, which can improve workplace morale and trust.
  
  
• Ongoing Benefits: Early engagement fosters trust, which is an invaluable investment in reducing turnover, increasing morale, and minimizing the likelihood of future unionization campaigns.
  
  

Conclusion

The 25th-hour speech is an outdated and ineffective strategy. Replacing it with a pre-election corporate-to-employee address at an earlier date allows companies to engage employees earlier, build credibility, and address concerns in a thoughtful and persuasive manner.

Final Thought

By adopting a proactive and psychologically informed approach, employers can foster healthier relationships with their employees and better navigate the complexities of union elections. A proactive, thoughtful approach is not just a strategic advantage in union elections; it is the cornerstone of a modern and respectful workplace culture.

---

---

 A PDF version of this argument, with additional information, and sources cited, is available here.