at open union adherents, including coercive interrogations, unlawful threats, and unlawful discharges and other retaliatory discipline. In context, the Respondent's comments are a “rather pointed hint” that it would, on learning their identity, similarly retaliate against employees who signed cards. 277 N.L.R.B. No. 43 at 2, J.A. at 75. As we have seen, the “unlawful threats” comprised at least one explicitly linked to signature of a union card. We think the Board’s conclusion was reasonable. In Hobart itself, in a portion of the Sixth Circuit opinion that Southwire chose not to quote, the court indicated that surrounding circumstances could transform otherwise “sound advice” into an implicit threat. Hobart Bros., 372 F.2d at 204; see also J.P. Stevens & Co., 638 F.2d at 680-81 (<HOLDING>); NLRB v. Finesilver Mfg. Co., 400 F.2d 644,
recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations recognizing the importance of the employers knowledge of the disability recognizing significance of employers history of  8 violations recognizing unmistakable symbolic significance of demonstrating in proximity to the seat of government