[dralley]

>Or is the job of those employees so vital that they could never be considered for firing? The article does not state what their actual occupations are.

They build, maintain and run security for the US nuclear weapons stockpile. This was, in fact, mentioned in the article.

Quote: "The nuclear security officials who were laid off on Thursday helped oversee the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons. That included staff who are stationed at facilities where the weapons are built, according to CNN."

Would you agree that this is a job of pretty vital importance?

[teddyh]

> They build, maintain and run security for the US nuclear weapons stockpile. This was, in fact, mentioned in the article.

That’s what the department does. The article does not say what the erroneously fired employees do.

> Would you agree that this is a job of pretty vital importance?

How would I know? The article does not explain it. To my uninformed ears it sounds like a pretty passive thing, which, if you assume physical security is intact, can keep just fine for quite some time. If they had fired some more vital people, like all security guards, by mistake, surely the article would have said so? But instead the article prevaricates. This makes the article sound untrustworthy.

[dralley]

I don't think you're ever going to get details on exactly what people working in such a facility do, dude.

The fact that they turned around and tried to rehire them before even 24 hours had passed should probably be a sign.

[teddyh]

A sign of WHAT? You still have not explained what the story actually is. When firing 10.000 people on relatively short notice, I would think it unfortunate, but completely expected, if some mistakes were made.

[dralley]

Why the fuck did they need to be fired on such short notice?

[teddyh]

I have no idea. Why are you asking me? The article does not mention it.

EDIT: Or did you mean to say that the article’s story is that the firing was done too quickly? That is actually a decent point, and the article would have been much better if it actually made that point. As it is, the article talks around things, avoids giving crucial details, and relates unconnected facts and pretends to have presented some sort of point, when in fact it only presented the illusion of one.