4 ms·

Why is the headline here missing "labor union says" The actual Weather Service seems to think they are doing just fine. “Let me state emphatically that we wou

Why is the headline here missing "labor union says" The actual Weather Service seems to think they are doing just fine. “Let me state emphatically that we would never take an action that would jeopardize the services we provide to emergency managers and the public,” she said. “NWS is taking definitive steps to ensure the health and well-being of our employees through guidance to local managers on scheduling and flexibility.”

cryptoz 9y ago
Headlines are limited to 80 characters here. The full headline was too long and I was not allowed to post it. I cut off the end, as it was present in bold at the top of the page after clicking, and seemed the only way to acceptably shorten the title so that it could be discussed here.
- timmaah 9y ago
  > Weather Service ‘teetering on the brink of failure,’ labor union says
  - cryptoz 9y ago
    That eliminates the main reason for the article to have been written, causes the reader to wonder if the NWS was just bombed with a nuke or something, and is absolutely clickbait. I stand by my headline change.
  - awj 9y ago
    So ... highlighting that this "brink of failure" is a staffing problem isn't as important as pointing out that the labor union is the one making the statement? Ok then...
metamet 9y ago
Why did your quote ignore the context of that quote? > Whether the cutbacks will affect the quality of forecasts and warnings, “I can’t say for certain,” Martin said. “You’re working people double shifts, some people aren’t getting days off, and you’re grinding people down. There is that potential [to affect the forecast quality]. The longer this goes on, the more the potential rises. It’s a long winter ahead.” > The Burlington Free-Press reported similar circumstances at the forecast office serving its region. “Given our staffing, our ability to fill our mission of protecting life and property would be nearly impossible if we had a big storm,” Brooke Taber, a Weather Service forecaster and union steward, told the paper. > Susan Buchanan, a spokeswoman for the National Weather Service, pushed back on any notion the organization is neglecting obligations to constituents and the health of its staff. “Let me state emphatically that we would never take an action that would jeopardize the services we provide to emergency managers and the public,” she said. “NWS is taking definitive steps to ensure the health and well-being of our employees through guidance to local managers on scheduling and flexibility.” Seems far from "just fine".
- timmaah 9y ago
  I was just stating the NWS side of it since the headline on HN is biased to labor point of view. (I'd probably side with labor on this issue as well, but the headline is clearly biased)
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    Nice concern-trolling.
  - metamet 9y ago
    Well, it is the labor union representing the workers stating it. It's clear in the article and from the context. Omitting that from the title doesn't really detract from message. I get what you're saying, but it's not propaganda, and the NWS isn't even saying they aren't understaffed (with the quote you offered as proof that they disagreed). They are saying they aren't putting their staff in dangerous situations, which is clearly being disputed by the staff and their union. They aren't saying being understaffed is fine.
    - timmaah 9y ago
      “We believe this level is adequate to achieve National Weather Service core functions,”
      - metamet 9y ago
        > While the “ceiling” for the total number of positions is 4,890 per the National Weather Service Table of Organization, the official said the number of positions is 4,453 people under the 2017 fiscal year appropriations act. “We believe this level is adequate to achieve National Weather Service core functions,” the official said. I would've recommended starting with this quote, then, if that's the point you were trying to make. But still, "adequate to achieve core functions" isn't the same as "just fine".
techwizrd 9y ago
Also, from the article: > The vacancy situation has not gone unnoticed by Congress. In its 2018 fiscal year budget markup for the Weather Service, the Senate Appropriations Committee wrote that the “extended vacancies are unacceptable — particularly when the Committee has provided more than adequate resources and direction to fill vacancies expeditiously for the past several years.” It looks like Congress agrees that the Weather Service is understaffed. > Martin said staff morale is in the tank. “Some people have been denied vacations, because there are not enough bodies to fill shifts,” he said. “I, myself, worked a 15-hour day about a week ago. You get a lot less sleep. You start to wonder if you’re safe on the road. You don’t see your loved ones, which eats into family life.” If this is even remotely true, it definitely seems they're understaffed despite the statement from the Weather Service. Of course the Weather Service would put out a statement they're doing fine. I see no reason as to why we should take their word for it over the word of Congressional committees and actual employees.
- timmaah 9y ago
  Congress needs to take some action then. Perhaps replace the head of the organization that believes they are fulfilling their mission correctly.
moomin 9y ago
What your answer is missing is “upper management says”. It’s not like they’re an impartial observer in this.

cryptoz 9y ago

Headlines are limited to 80 characters here. The full headline was too long and I was not allowed to post it. I cut off the end, as it was present in bold at the top of the page after clicking, and seemed the only way to acceptably shorten the title so that it could be discussed here.

timmaah 9y ago
> Weather Service ‘teetering on the brink of failure,’ labor union says
- cryptoz 9y ago
  That eliminates the main reason for the article to have been written, causes the reader to wonder if the NWS was just bombed with a nuke or something, and is absolutely clickbait. I stand by my headline change.
- awj 9y ago
  So ... highlighting that this "brink of failure" is a staffing problem isn't as important as pointing out that the labor union is the one making the statement? Ok then...

metamet 9y ago

Why did your quote ignore the context of that quote? > Whether the cutbacks will affect the quality of forecasts and warnings, “I can’t say for certain,” Martin said. “You’re working people double shifts, some people aren’t getting days off, and you’re grinding people down. There is that potential [to affect the forecast quality]. The longer this goes on, the more the potential rises. It’s a long winter ahead.” > The Burlington Free-Press reported similar circumstances at the forecast office serving its region. “Given our staffing, our ability to fill our mission of protecting life and property would be nearly impossible if we had a big storm,” Brooke Taber, a Weather Service forecaster and union steward, told the paper. > Susan Buchanan, a spokeswoman for the National Weather Service, pushed back on any notion the organization is neglecting obligations to constituents and the health of its staff. “Let me state emphatically that we would never take an action that would jeopardize the services we provide to emergency managers and the public,” she said. “NWS is taking definitive steps to ensure the health and well-being of our employees through guidance to local managers on scheduling and flexibility.” Seems far from "just fine".

timmaah 9y ago
I was just stating the NWS side of it since the headline on HN is biased to labor point of view. (I'd probably side with labor on this issue as well, but the headline is clearly biased)
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Nice concern-trolling.
- metamet 9y ago
  Well, it is the labor union representing the workers stating it. It's clear in the article and from the context. Omitting that from the title doesn't really detract from message. I get what you're saying, but it's not propaganda, and the NWS isn't even saying they aren't understaffed (with the quote you offered as proof that they disagreed). They are saying they aren't putting their staff in dangerous situations, which is clearly being disputed by the staff and their union. They aren't saying being understaffed is fine.
  - timmaah 9y ago
    “We believe this level is adequate to achieve National Weather Service core functions,”
    - metamet 9y ago
      > While the “ceiling” for the total number of positions is 4,890 per the National Weather Service Table of Organization, the official said the number of positions is 4,453 people under the 2017 fiscal year appropriations act. “We believe this level is adequate to achieve National Weather Service core functions,” the official said. I would've recommended starting with this quote, then, if that's the point you were trying to make. But still, "adequate to achieve core functions" isn't the same as "just fine".

techwizrd 9y ago

Also, from the article: > The vacancy situation has not gone unnoticed by Congress. In its 2018 fiscal year budget markup for the Weather Service, the Senate Appropriations Committee wrote that the “extended vacancies are unacceptable — particularly when the Committee has provided more than adequate resources and direction to fill vacancies expeditiously for the past several years.” It looks like Congress agrees that the Weather Service is understaffed. > Martin said staff morale is in the tank. “Some people have been denied vacations, because there are not enough bodies to fill shifts,” he said. “I, myself, worked a 15-hour day about a week ago. You get a lot less sleep. You start to wonder if you’re safe on the road. You don’t see your loved ones, which eats into family life.” If this is even remotely true, it definitely seems they're understaffed despite the statement from the Weather Service. Of course the Weather Service would put out a statement they're doing fine. I see no reason as to why we should take their word for it over the word of Congressional committees and actual employees.

timmaah 9y ago
Congress needs to take some action then. Perhaps replace the head of the organization that believes they are fulfilling their mission correctly.

moomin 9y ago

What your answer is missing is “upper management says”. It’s not like they’re an impartial observer in this.