3 ms·

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 h

• 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".