By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The National Weather Service (NWS) has been authorized to hire 450 meteorologists, hydrologists, and radar technicians, a move welcomed by current staff after facing staffing shortages due to government cuts and early retirements. These new hires, including 126 previously approved positions, will bolster “front-line mission critical” personnel. The agency’s hiring authority was impacted by staff reductions resulting in the need for new hires. While the agency is optimistic about the reinforcements, there is some frustration about the loss of experienced personnel in the previous cuts. The NWS will utilize direct hiring authority to expedite the process, focusing on workload-based hiring.
Read the original article here
Weather Service is now hiring back hundreds of positions that got cut in the DOGE chaos, a situation that on the surface seems a bit, well, inefficient. You’d think that after a government initiative—let’s just call it DOGE, since we’re all using the shorthand—aimed at streamlining things, the National Weather Service wouldn’t be in a position of having to rapidly rehire hundreds of staff. Yet, here we are. The agency has gotten the green light to bring on board 450 meteorologists, hydrologists, and radar technicians, just months after a round of cuts and early retirement incentives.
The irony isn’t lost on anyone. The very cuts that were supposed to save money and make things more efficient have now led to a scramble to fill critical gaps. The National Weather Service lost 550 people due to these DOGE-related initiatives. Now, with hurricane season upon us, they are being given special permission to hire 450 people just to cover those critical gaps. That doesn’t quite add up, does it? And what’s more, a chunk of these new hires, about 126 positions, were already in the pipeline as “front-line mission critical” personnel.
This whole thing screams of a pointless waste of time and resources. The NWS, along with support from lawmakers, had been pushing for an exemption from the federal hiring freeze for months, emphasizing public safety concerns. They got it, finally, gaining direct hiring authority from the Office of Personnel Management. It begs the question of how much money will be spent on training these new recruits. The cost of getting these new hires up to speed might even exceed whatever savings were supposedly achieved through the initial DOGE cuts.
Of course, we’re probably still going to hear those administration claims about how the DOGE cuts reduced federal spending, even though those claims won’t account for the additional expenses required to clean up the mess they left behind. And let’s not forget, it’s hurricane season. The very nature of the work should have made such cuts unthinkable in the first place. The potential consequences are very serious, especially when you consider the vital public safety responsibilities of the Weather Service.
The whole DOGE initiative, at least from this perspective, comes across as a major failure. What’s more, some worry about the possibility of these new hires even being able to effectively utilize necessary tools and equipment. Questions are being raised about whether preference will be given to re-hiring people who were previously employed, or if the selection process will be influenced by political allegiances. It seems, from all accounts, that the selection process is a very loaded one.
This is clearly a situation where more employees are being added, and there is fear that more government resources will be wasted. It’s like the whole thing is a Department of Government Excesses rather than efficiency. And with the emphasis on new hires, it raises questions about whether experience is being valued. Concerns are also being raised about a possible “purge” of current staff followed by a rehiring of “the right people.” All of this at a further cost to taxpayers.
It is estimated that the cost of training a new hire can be pretty significant. What would be the incentive for anyone to return to these positions if they face the possibility of being let go again? This whole situation comes across as a waste of money and a testament to the inefficiency that DOGE has apparently introduced. The application questions reportedly asked, which included inquiries on assisting the president in enforcing executive orders and how the constitution inspires work for the federal government, seem wholly inappropriate for a radar technician, or any other position within the Weather Service.
There are accusations that the entire plan seems to be about hiring loyalists and those who will swear fealty to a leader. With hurricane season on the horizon, the situation is certainly serious. The concern is that the replacements may be underqualified but, crucially, will be loyal to certain political interests, ensuring that the agency serves certain political agendas. It’s a situation where long-standing institutional knowledge is being castrated.
There are those who believe that the whole DOGE debacle is a product of uninformed decision-making. Some are even speculating that this may be a calculated maneuver to get the “right” people back. These new hires will potentially lack experience and the ability to train others. The implication is that the initial cuts were nothing more than a scam, designed to benefit certain individuals or specific interests. The whole exercise is not, by any measure, improving anything.
The core of the concern seems to be that the previous cuts may have already had a devastating impact. If you get rid of the trainers (e.g., the more experienced, expensive people) the replacements are also going to be left without a good trainer. There is a belief that there was a plan to “slash and burn” or bring in replacements from a predetermined list of conservatives. The worry is that loyalty to the administration will come at the expense of expertise. The result could be lower pay, less experienced staff, and the potential for a less effective Weather Service.
The impact is potentially far-reaching, especially considering the field of weather science. The institutional knowledge that has been lost can’t easily be replaced. There are a lot of questions about pay, job security, and whether a meritocracy is even in play.