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.”
> 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.
> 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".
(I'd probably side with labor on this issue as well, but the headline is clearly biased)
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.
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".
It’s not like they’re an impartial observer in this.