Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

[Randy Zipser]

It isn't understaffing as this has been going on for 15 years. This is why we desperately need a NDRB but my guess is it is very poor training of young meteorologists as my generation has retired. I have had many NWS mets tell me confidential horror stories w/r/t to no or virtually no training and mets being turned loose on the warning desk.

I have offered the NWS, multiple times, to help them with new training and I have turned them down every time. I am guessing that if I can do traditional tornado warning training at low cost it threatens their way of doing things.

Exactly, Mike! That was what I was getting at in my earlier post #23 about setting educational priorities in this country! We are doing a lousy job of training our current generation of NWS employees to handle the demands of our present-day NWS; just imagine what will happen in the future as AI-enabled computers and faster-chip technology "overwhelm" these insufficiently-trained NWS workers. These NWS people are the public's "first-line" of defense in potential severe-weather situations so they better be "on the ball" when these events occur! This is a really scary scenario if not addressed and I fear that future lives will be lost unnecessarily because of it...

 

[John Farley]

Better training is needed and there are a lot of things that need to be fixed with the NWS and NOAA, but indiscriminate layoffs are not the answer and will only make a bad situation worse. Totally agree we need a NDRB, and that we need a thoughtful process to fix what is wrong, like Randy suggested a number of posts back. Something like that could make a real positive difference; indiscriminate cuts of people just because they are the easiest ones to cut (i.e. probationary employees) will only make things even worse.

 

[Mike Smith]

but indiscriminate layoffs are not the answer

John, in case that is directed at me, I've evidently not made myself clear. I agree with you. There is plenty to cut in NOAA but not in the NWS. NOAA does not need a full time cartoonist (really), videographers - while also spending $3+ million a year in outside video support -- et cetera.

While I support President Trump moving quickly (our deficit goes up another $1 trillion every 100 days), this should have been better strategized in the period between the election and swearing in.

 

[Randy Zipser]

It appears that NOAA may have gotten off with a pretty light hit when compared to some other agencies that have recently followed. Perhaps because NOAA was one of the first, if not the first, target of the DOGE's "meat axe." Here are some numbers, for comparison:

NOAA: 1,300 layoffs out of a total workforce of 13K employees (10%);

U.S. Dept of Education (DOE): 2,000 layoffs out of an approximate workforce of 4K+ employees (50%+);

Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA): 80K - 100K layoffs out of an approximate workforce of 500K employees (16% - 20%).

In the case of NOAA, there are "4,900 employees in 122 weather forecast [NWS] offices, 13 river forecast centers, 9 national centers, and other support offices around the U.S." (according to NOAA's website). If we assume that most of these 4,900 employees are working in the 122 NWS offices, say 4K (just to use a round number), then approximately 31% [4K/13K] of the total NOAA workforce is comprised of NWS office staff. Thus, about 400 [1,300 X 0.31] layoffs could potentially come from the NWS part of NOAA. Remember that the NWS is the "first line of defense" for the American public when it comes to severe-weather forecasting and warnings, and as such, their services should be viewed as crucial to the public's wellbeing.

However, I suspect that the DOGE staffers probably bothered to do very little, if any, simple arithmetic like the above before "swinging the meat-axe," as their motto was ,"Axe first and ask no questions later!" We are now seeing the resulting chaos throughout the federal government (and even, perhaps, on Wall Street) as a direct result...and as suddenly laid-off voters, those people won't forget how they were treated come the next (2026 mid-term) election!

 

[Randy Zipser]

We are now seeing the resulting chaos throughout the federal government (and even, perhaps, on Wall Street) as a direct result...and as suddenly laid-off voters, those people won't forget how they were treated come the next (2026 mid-term) election!

So as not to risk going too far off-topic on the political side, the following link from two days ago by the Associated Press is pertinent to my quoted statement above (which applies to NOAA as well, though not specifically mentioned):

Musk and DOGE try to slash government by cutting out those who answer to voters

 

[Randy Jennings]

NBC 5 in DFW has interviewed JoAnn Becker, president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization (aka union), about NWS firings and staffing and posted a story with far more detail than I had seen in others, including:

"The union says at least 165 weather service employees accepted early retirement buyouts the Trump administration offered federal workers, and more than 100 probationary employees were fired. About a dozen have since received letters inviting them back, the union said, but it’s not clear if others will be allowed to return."

"At the National Storm Prediction Center, just up Interstate 35 in Norman, Oklahoma, the union reported one probationary worker had been fired and that there were seven longstanding vacancies. The union said that eight out of 41 slots at the center, including four forecaster positions, are vacant, leaving a nearly 20% vacancy rate at a critical center that issues tornado forecast guidance nationwide."

"NBC 5 Investigates has reported for at least a decade on how NWS budget cuts and internal hiring challenges have created hundreds of vacant positions at local forecast offices. In 2015, we reported the agency had as many as 500 vacant positions nationwide, including about 200 frontline meteorologist jobs. The NWSEO said the number of vacancies was at least 700 before the most recent cuts. The union said the forecast office in Fort Worth, which covers the DFW area, has been operating with four out of 27 positions vacant, including two front-line meteorologist slots."

Full story at: Forecasters union worried about drop in NWS staffing ahead of spring storm season

 

[Randy Zipser]

NBC 5 in DFW has interviewed JoAnn Becker, president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization (aka union), about NWS firings and staffing and posted a story with far more detail than I had seen in others, including:

"The union says at least 165 weather service employees accepted early retirement buyouts the Trump administration offered federal workers, and more than 100 probationary employees were fired. About a dozen have since received letters inviting them back, the union said, but it’s not clear if others will be allowed to return."

"At the National Storm Prediction Center, just up Interstate 35 in Norman, Oklahoma, the union reported one probationary worker had been fired and that there were seven longstanding vacancies. The union said that eight out of 41 slots at the center, including four forecaster positions, are vacant, leaving a nearly 20% vacancy rate at a critical center that issues tornado forecast guidance nationwide."

"NBC 5 Investigates has reported for at least a decade on how NWS budget cuts and internal hiring challenges have created hundreds of vacant positions at local forecast offices. In 2015, we reported the agency had as many as 500 vacant positions nationwide, including about 200 frontline meteorologist jobs. The NWSEO said the number of vacancies was at least 700 before the most recent cuts. The union said the forecast office in Fort Worth, which covers the DFW area, has been operating with four out of 27 positions vacant, including two front-line meteorologist slots."

Full story at: Forecasters union worried about drop in NWS staffing ahead of spring storm season

Excellent article, Randy. RZ

 

[Mike Smith]

NBC 5 Investigates has reported for at least a decade on how NWS budget cuts and internal hiring challenges

I highlight this because of the pushback I received when I noted this started during Obama and no one was protesting. If forecaster cuts are bad (and they are!) during Trump, they were bad during Obama. I don't understand why some have rationalized those.

Did everyone note how the NTSB, Monday, commented on staffing at the DCA control tower when the midair collision occurred in January? The NDRB would be pointing out understaffing at NWS. How many of you have written your congresspeople supporting the NDRB?

 

[John Farley]

I highlight this because of the pushback I received when I noted this started during Obama and no one was protesting. If forecaster cuts are bad (and they are!) during Trump, they were bad during Obama. I don't understand why some have rationalized those.

Did everyone note how the NTSB, Monday, commented on staffing at the DCA control tower when the midair collision occurred in January? The NDRB would be pointing out understaffing at NWS. How many of you have written your congresspeople supporting the NDRB?

This has been going on under both political parties, for a long time. Worsening under Obama, Trump I, probably Biden, and certainly now Trump 2. It is a big mistake, no matter which party does it, and I have always been opposed to cuts in the NWS, regardless of the party in power. Maybe we all should have made noise about it sooner than we did, but there is nothing we can do about that now. But we can speak out now, as the condition continues to worsen, probably at an accelerating rate. It also suggests to me that personnel cuts over the past decade probably ARE a factor in the declining quality of tornado warnings that you have noted a number of times.

 

[Randy Zipser]

The following link is a good, but lengthy, article that appeared online yesterday evening from the USA Today newspaper, detailing a day-by-day historical perspective about the mass federal-government layoffs:

Trump's mass federal workforce cuts: What has happened so far

Very informative.

 

[Mike Smith]

Everyone,

I would like to reiterate what I believe is the strategy to mitigate cuts at the NWS. Please see: May We Stop the Politics??

The "nothing can be cut" isn't getting us anywhere and it is, frankly, wrong. The piece illustrates things that can be cut with zero effect on the NWS's mission. I advocate cutting absolutely everything unnecessary and telling DOGE we need to put some of the savings (from NOAA) back into NWS.

Mike

 

[Randy Zipser]

As a follow-up to Post #40, please see the (included) link below, as it relates specifically to NOAA:

Mass job cuts hit NOAA, agency that oversees hurricane center and weather service

 

[Randy Zipser]

Everyone,

I would like to reiterate what I believe is the strategy to mitigate cuts at the NWS. Please see: May We Stop the Politics??

The "nothing can be cut" isn't getting us anywhere and it is, frankly, wrong. The piece illustrates things that can be cut with zero effect on the NWS's mission. I advocate cutting absolutely everything unnecessary and telling DOGE we need to put some of the savings (from NOAA) back into NWS.

Mike

I agree, Mike, that cutting of "unnecessary" services now under NOAA--having now become a very visible and painful priority of the new administration--is inevitable and a good thing in the long run for our country and its economy/budget woes.

However, the word "cutting" is quite problematic. Does cutting mean stopping all present work on existing projects, or finding a way to continue on with such tasks/projects outside the taxpayer-funded budget of the federal government? The issue I'm wrestling with is that it may be very difficult to find a suitable outlet to continue certain government-funded functions (such as, for example, NSSL's research) in the private business/corporate world due to the open-ended, long-term nature of research itself. Higher-education institutions might seem like a possible solution, but very few universities, if any, have large enough operating budgets from tuition alone that are sufficient to carry out research in all departments at the post-graduate level, and thus seek outside sources for grant funding...which, again, mostly comes from public/private partnership or federal-government dollars. So, in a sense, it's like a closed loop that starts and ends with federal dollars (which, of course, add to the federal budget, presently in deficit somewhere north of thirty-trillion dollars). Or, to look at the situation another way: the concept of slashing federal dollars completely out of the services (e.g., non-forecasting research) that, say, NOAA, or even some of the larger NWS forecast offices, are now providing, is inconsistent with the reality that these services will still be able to continue to exist post-DOGE. The reason for this is that the private-sector has no incentive to take on this "long-term" commitment because there is so little profit to be made within the short intervals of time that private-consultant budgets and payrolls must operate to stay in business, as you well know from founding WeatherData Services, Inc...

So, if this research "dies" from lack of public funding, the federal tax-dollars saved could be returned to the NWS offices to upgrade their computers for cutting-edge AI capability or for better training for young recruits. But, this also comes at the expense of losing valuable research, which may now be providing an even greater benefit by advancing of the "state-of-the-science" of applied meteorology in ways that could possibly someday improve the accuracy of forecasts and efficiency of warning operations. But let's face the truth here: how can we ever know where that savings will really end up going or being spent?

Only time will tell how everything happening in today's news will work out. But, hopefully, it's for the betterment of whatever becomes the future NOAA and NWS...

 

[Mike Smith]

Does cutting mean stopping all present work on existing projects, or finding a way to continue on with such tasks/projects outside the taxpayer-funded budget of the federal government? The issue I'm wrestling with is that it may be very difficult to find a suitable outlet to continue certain government-funded functions (such as, for example, NSSL's research) in the private business/corporate world due to the open-ended, long-term nature of research itself.

Is there is a less impressive research organization than NSSL? They turn out something worthwhile maybe every ~20 - 25 years. While I dislike the slow pace of universities it isn't the glacial pace of NSSL. One could put together a research group of 10 or so mets with 2-3 computer scientists (perhaps led by Erik Rasmussen) and they would be far, far, far more productive. Or, it could be in the private sector. The advantage of a PS lab is that the funding could easily be yanked if they didn't meet their goals.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Is there is a less impressive research organization than NSSL? They turn out something worthwhile maybe every ~20 - 25 years. While I dislike the slow pace of universities it isn't the glacial pace of NSSL. One could put together a research group or 10 or so mets with 2-3 computer scientists (perhaps led by Erik Rasmussen) and they would be far, far, far more productive. Or, it could be in the private sector. The advantage of a PS lab is that the funding could easily be yanked if they didn't meet their goals.

Yes, you have a good point there. I was just using NSSL as an example because that's the only research institution that I have (or at least had at the time I worked there!) any first-hand knowledge about. But, yes, the days of a massive, centrally-located bureaucratic operation like NSSL may not be the best way to accomplish what their mission is--and needs to be reorganized to meet the demands of today's nimble and rapidly-paced world. Or...just do what you said above! Who would be the paying "client(s)" for sustaining this 12-13 member PS Lab group that you describe above?

BTW, what is Erik Rasmussen doing these days? Is he still working? I have a great deal of respect for him, because he gave my thesis a "stinging" critique for "subjective" statements I made in the Error Analysis portion related to my debris-tracking methodology. Of course, he was right and, to this day, I can say that he is only person in the world who has established (in this PhD dissertation) a workable objective numerical methodology for computing accurately tornado wind-speed error! I can see how Erik's attention to detail would make him a great research-group leader, although I do not recall having ever met him in person back in my research days at NSSL (as he was at Texas Tech University then).

Good discussion! RZ