It does. So far, about 4 people have explained this across many threads, and you still don't seem to acknowledge it.

Edit because rate limited:

The problem is not what was said, necessarily, but the way in which it was said. Hence citing the Honda ruling.

This is at least my, not-a-lawyer interpretation. That is, just because you are saying something to discuss workplace issues does not give you the right to say literally anything. Sufficiently disruptive discussion of workplace issues is still disruptive enough to merit a response, not because of the content, but because it is disruptive.

Apparently the NLRB draws the line for sufficiently disruptive somewhere before "results in the demonstrated loss of multiple perspective candidates".