boss embarrassed me at a meeting, pre-hire drug and alcohol testing, and more

by Alison Green on March 21, 2025

It’s four answers to four questions. Here we go…

1. My boss embarrassed me at a department meeting

My company is being bought out for a larger organization. Our jobs will no longer exist in four months. We’ve been encouraged to review the job postings and apply to jobs for which we might qualify. I reviewed the postings and selected two to apply for — one that would be very easy for me to move to as it’s tasks I already complete daily. The other was a stretch position, something that I’ve done but haven’t dabbled much in while at my current organization. I got an interview for the stretch job and, while I didn’t hold out hope, I gave it my best shot.

Thank goodness I didn’t hold out hope. My current boss was notified by the new org that I applied and interviewed. I was promptly told that I wasn’t a good fit (by my current org, mind you), and I haven’t heard from the new org. Then, in our departmental meeting with my entire department, my current boss told everyone they need to tell him what they’re applying for so he can tell them if they’re a “good fit” because “we don’t want a llama groomer thinking she can be a llama whisperer when she’s never been involved in llama whispering here!” And looked directly at me. (Job titles made up for anonymity, obviously.)

I’m embarrassed. He could’ve just said, at that point, that I shouldn’t have applied for the job, but it’s a good next step in my career and something I’ve wanted to do for a while. I’m not sure how to even act around him now, because I know that was directed, embarrassingly, at me, and now all my coworkers do too and some have even come up to me to tell me how inappropriate it was.

I know I need to leave the org because I can’t move up here and they have no interest in developing my career path, but I’m not sure how to act until I do leave.

Your boss is an utter ass. First of all, it obviously wasn’t far-fetched for you to apply to that job because they interviewed you for it — which means that they reviewed your materials and thought you could be a plausible candidate. Second, and more importantly, there was zero cause for him to embarrass you that way at a department meeting. If he felt he needed to give you feedback (which is possible, given that the new org isn’t entirely separate from your org but is buying it out), he should have done it in private, and he should have offered something more constructive than to just essentially accuse you of hubris (which, again, wasn’t even grounded in reality, since the other org thought you worth interviewing).

Your boss is a jackwagon, he revealed himself as a jackwagon to others at that meeting (although that probably wasn’t a new discovery for them, and I bet it’s not a new discovery for you either), and ideally you’d try to reframe your thinking to see it as much more embarrassing to him than to you. What he did is evidence of his lack of character/leadership/judgment, nothing else.

2. How to refer to a basketball sex scandal at work

I was discussing the upcoming March Madness tournament with some coworkers, and the conversation turned to St. John’s coach Rick Pitino, and his previous stint at Louisville where he was stripped of a national championship due to supplying recruits with prostitutes to induce them to attend the school. My coworker was unaware Pitino’s team had been stripped of a title, only that he had won one (and that he had had similar success at other schools). I was unsure of how to reference the scandal in a way that was appropriate for work, but I eventually settled on saying that he offered the recruits “certain impermissible benefits” (which is more or less the official wording of the charges from the NCAA) and noted that even in today’s era, where you’re allowed to offer basically unfettered NIL (Name, Image, & Likeness) benefits to induce players to attend your school (which wasn’t the case at the time of the scandal), “that particular benefit that he offered is still not permitted, and I’ll just leave it at that.” Was this an appropriate way to reference what happened?

It’s unnecessarily coy. It’s okay to just come out and say, “He supplied recruits with sex workers to try to induce them to attend the school.” That’s what happened, you’re alluding to it anyway, and it’s better to just say it rather than to dance around it with something mysterious sounding. Otherwise, it’s would probably be better to just say “unethical recruiting practices” rather than “certain impermissible benefits”; the latter just sounds very cryptic.

3. How should I handle a company’s pre-hire drug and alcohol testing?

I am in the late stages of the interview process for an entry-level admin job at a manufacturing company. This company requires a pre-employment drug and alcohol test across the board for all new hires. Is there an appropriate way to inquire about this test? I would like to know the philosophy behind the request, particularly for an entry-level admin position, which is largely answering phones with some data entry. It is unclear to me how my nightly glass of wine would be any of their business.

In addition, I have a prescription for a drug that is also recreationally legal in my state. I would like to inquire without giving too much information, but also not raise undue suspicion (I’m happy to say what my medical condition is in general, but overall it sounds like self declaring this stuff when you don’t otherwise need accommodations is a no-no). Or maybe I should just take the test and see what they say? Honestly, at this point I am wondering if this is a sign of a cultural mismatch.

Unlike drug testing — which can pick up drug use days or, for some drugs, even weeks later — alcohol testing is testing for current impairment. So they’re not looking to see if you have a nightly glass of wine; they’re trying to catch people who are showing up to a daytime work appointment with alcohol in their system. It’s probably more relevant for their manufacturing jobs (for safety reasons), but they’ve made it part of their standard new hire testing.

Marijuana testing is more complicated; those tests pick up longer-ago use (potentially weeks-old use if you’re a regular consumer). Some states that have legalized marijuana, but not all of them, have prohibited employers from taking action against employees who use it outside of work. Those laws vary in details; some bar employers from testing for it at all, while others permit the test but say employers can’t deny you a job based on a positive result. Some cover only medical use, while some cover recreational use as well; all make exceptions for safety-sensitive positions. This also gets more complicated for federal contractors, who are required to comply with drug-free workplace laws set at the federal level (where marijuana is still illegal). So in your shoes, I’d look up what your state law says about employment testing for marijuana and go from there.

But as for inquiring about the philosophy behind the testing: they’ll almost certainly tell you that they want to have a drug-free workplace … which sounds like a perfectly reasonable stance for a manufacturing company, except that non-alcohol drug tests will detect private use in your own home in your off hours last weekend. Which is really why workplaces that care about safety should be using impairment tests instead; impairment tests check if you’re impaired for any reason, not just find out that you smoked a joint before bed a week ago. Performance tests measures things like hand-eye coordination and response time and are designed to catch multiple types of impairment, including legal ones like fatigue, and are used by NASA on astronauts and test pilots, and in other cases where safety matters more than drug testing theater.

4. Can I ask a nonprofit if they’re dependent on federal grants?

I’m a displaced federal employee — I had exceptional performance reviews, but I was fired for “performance” with 28 days remaining in my first year. I’ve started my job search and have been frank about my situation with prospective employers — “I was terminated as part of recent mass firings, but I am happy to provide performance documentation as well as references from supervisors.”

Now I have a possible interview. The position aligns with my abilities and interests, everything I’ve encountered feels positive, and it’s at a nonprofit with a mission that I would feel good about supporting. But after losing my beloved former position to the current administration, I’m nervous. Would it be appropriate for me to ask if/how their organization relies on federal grants? If so, would it be appropriate in the interview? How?

(Additional complications I don’t even know where to start on: my former position might be reinstated, my former office might have a new opening that is exempted and also a good fit for me … but I don’t feel like I can count on either. I loved my workplace and the good we did, but I have to explore other options!)

Yes, you can absolutely ask whether the organization, and this position in particular, rely on federal grants. That’s not an uncommon thing to ask about in nonprofit interviews, even before the current chaos, and it’s even more understandable right now. You can word it this way: “Do you rely on federal grants at all, and do you expect your budget, or this position itself, to be affected by what’s going on?”

You may also like:
{ 317 comments }

{ 317 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    A reminder: We’ve had a recent increase in trolling here, and you can help me by NOT RESPONDING to it. If you engage, you are ensuring that troll will reappear. Instead, please flag the comment for me (just reply with a link, which will send your comment to moderation so I’ll see it).

    A change to previous requests: please don’t reply “reported,” either. Do not engage at all. Thank you.

    Reply ↓
  2. sarah*

    “Certain impermissible benefits” is SO vague! Most people would ask what that means and then you’ll be answering it anyway.

    Reply ↓
    1. nnn*

      I agree. The thing about the phrase “certain impermissible benefits” is that people would have to be aware that hiring sex workers is one of the things that a coach might offer players in this situation (even given that it’s not allowed).

      I don’t know enough about this situation to know if the someone who is a basketball fan but is not already aware of the situation would be able to make that extrapolation. I also don’t know how much overlap there would be in the Venn diagram of people who would be able to conclude that he hired sex workers while also not being comfortable with hearing the phrase “sex workers” in response to their own stated question about the nature of a scandal.

      On further thought, if it is important to avoid uttering the phrase “sex workers” at work, you could say something like “He hired NSFW services for the players”. That makes it clearer what you’re circumlocuting and why.

      Reply ↓
      1. Ellis Bell*

        Why would you want to avoid the phrase though? I’m genuinely baffled. Like, you shouldn’t reference your own sex life at work, or a love of employing sex workers, but there’s absolutely no need to pretend they don’t exist anywhere!

        Reply ↓
        1. Fluffy Fish*

          This. Talking about sex in the context of personal activities is not a work topic, but a factual statement about a news reported incident involving sex is not the same thing.

          Reply ↓
          1. NotBatman*

            Exactly! It’d be inappropriate to say “he hired sex workers who then [specific sexual activities] with the recruits”, but nobody’s asking you to pretend that sex doesn’t exist while at work.

            Reply ↓
            1. Ann Onymous*

              Yeah – professionalism (and general politeness) mean you shouldn’t inquire about coworkers’ sex lives, tell them about yours, or have extended or detailed discussions about sex. Professionalism doesn’t mean you have to bend over backwards to avoid saying anything that acknowledges the existence of sex.

              Reply ↓
        2. Smithy*

          I think this may be more relevant regarding who you’re talking to. If you’re on the sales team and in a casual conversation with the CFO or someone else really senior in another department – I understand wanting a euphemism. Essentially a very topical and relatively benign workplace chitchat topic, taking a sharp turn into something more salacious with someone senior you don’t know well.

          I do think in a case like that, that “adult services” can get you closer. It’s definitely being vague, and honestly might make the person think you were just talking about alcohol – but I think gets you closer.

          I get that the simple mention of sex workers shouldn’t automatically be a taboo in that kind of conversation, but I do think the OP’s initial nervousness in being direct is a valid gut response to be mindful of.

          Reply ↓
          1. metadata minion*

            If someone said “adult services” I would 100% assume they were talking about sex, since there’s really only one thing that’s normally code for, unless you’re, say, in a library and are talking about adult programming as distinct from children’s programming.

            Reply ↓
            1. Another Kristin*

              You could also say “escorts” – if someone told me a coach was caught procuring escorts to recruit prospective players, I would definitely know what that meant!

              Reply ↓
              1. Emily Byrd Starr*

                “Escorts” is perfect. It avoids the word “sex” for the overly prudish, and everyone knows what it means.

                Reply ↓
          2. Ellis Bell*

            Senior people are still adults, so what exactly are we avoiding saying to them and why? Sex workers is the formal phrase, and the work doesn’t particularly need to be euphemised either, it’s just their job. I’m honestly puzzled at what the concern here is! Simply referring to a news event is not salacious or inappropriate at all.

            Reply ↓
            1. Smithy*

              While age can be part of this – I meant senior to refer to the hierarchy at an employer.

              In my case, every interaction I have at work with our CFO or most senior HR person is very infrequent. I don’t think they’re that much older than me, but I don’t know them well and we’re in a hierarchical enough organization that I do censor how casual I am around them.

              I’m not presenting this to say that it’s a HR violation or something to say sex worker in regards to a pertinent news story. I’m saying that if your gut tells you to be cautious or more formal with certain people at work – even if it’s just because you don’t know them that well – it’s reasonable.

              Reply ↓
        3. Emily Byrd Starr*

          Because some people are overly prudish and uncomfortable talking about sex at all , or even saying/hearing the word “sex” at work. Or maybe they have religious reasons for avoiding sexual discussions. It’s not right to tell people that they are wrong for being prudish, uncomfortable, or religious; especially at work.

          Reply ↓
        1. bamcheeks*

          That was going to be my answer too! If you really feel so shy about saying it, it’s fine to say, “I’m not comfortable saying it, but you’ll find it if you Google “pitino Louisville scandal” you’ll find it.

          Reply ↓
      3. WellRed*

        This is just as vague and will have people asking what NSFW means. Not sure why sex workers is such an issue. It wa in the news.

        Reply ↓
        1. Silver Robin*

          I assumed you would say out loud “not safe for work” rather than the initialism. And that phrase is pretty commonly used; it is broader than just sex but still carries the connotation of illicit.

          Not that I think “sex workers” should be avoided, I think that phrasing is fine.

          Reply ↓
        2. Sir Nose d'Voidoffunk*

          To be fair, there were certain other…hilarious details from the story that seem a lot less work-appropriate. Duration and such.

          Reply ↓
    2. Leenie*

      It’s really vague. But also, in context, it’s so loaded with insinuation that it could actually come across as sleazy, in a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink…” kind of way. I don’t think for a second that the LW intended that at all, and I’m sure that her tone didn’t suggest that. But I’ve noticed that sometimes very euphemistic language can sound way grosser than just saying the words.

      Reply ↓
      1. Rogue Slime Mold*

        Yeah, it’s got overtones of:

        A: “We all know.” *wink*
        B: “What do we all know?”
        A: “The thing.” *wink*
        B: “What thing?”
        A: “The thing that we know.” *wink*

        Where in this case party B is not trying to bait party A, but genuinely has no idea what party A is talking about. And may be less inclined to privately google party A’s weird asides later, and instead will try and avoid another conversation with A.

        Reply ↓
      2. Saturday*

        It sounds like it comes with a wink and a nudge to me too – especially because of the use of the word “benefits.”

        Agree it’s okay to just say he hired sex workers for the prospective players.

        Reply ↓
    4. Seeking Second Childhood*

      Since we’re not talking about a state where prostitution is legal, I’d suggest skipping to the word illegal.

      Reply ↓
        1. Audiophile*

          This is where my brain would go as well. “Certain impermissible benefits” and “college basketball recruits” would make me jump to plying teens with drugs.

          Reply ↓
    5. Antilles*

      “impermissible benefits” is actually a known term the NCAA uses. However, it historically meant things like “giving a player a few hundred bucks” or “buying a player a car”. Which were against the rules for decades, but as of 2021, are now completely allowable.
      So calling them impermissible benefits is actively misleading, because it sounds much more tame than the actual scandal was.

      Reply ↓
      1. ecnaseener*

        The word “certain” also makes it much weirder. “He offered impermissible benefits” — okay, he broke some rule, sounds boring. “He offered certain impermissible benefits…” oh, you’re implying something, but what?

        Reply ↓
    6. Looper*

      It also makes it sound like LW sees access to sex workers paid for by the college as a “benefit” to being a player, almost like LW condones the practice. Which is definitely not a vibe I want to get from a coworker.

      Reply ↓
      1. Silver Robin*

        that is a stretch, I think. The coach was offering it as a benefit, so that is the framing used, but it does not at all imply anything about LW’s stance. Literally it was “impermissible” as a benefit, it was not allowed according to the rules. That is an entirely neutral statement. Any other stance you get would have to be based on other context clues or tone, which is not provided here

        Reply ↓
        1. Looper*

          Much like Rogue Slime Mold’s comment stated, there is a strong “wink,wink” undertone present in LW’s vagueness. What that undertone implies is, if not overt endorsement, is a shrugging acceptance. That’s the risk of what LW is saying, I don’t think that’s a stretch.

          Reply ↓
        2. Observer*

          but it does not at all imply anything about LW’s stance.

          I am sure that the LW does not condone it. But that usage absolutely *does* imply that they do. Which is a valuable thing for them to realize. Because if they think that even mentioning the words is inappropriate at work, I am *positive* that they don’t want to come off as sounding like they actually think it was OK!

          Reply ↓
    7. Butterfly Counter*

      I teach. A lot of what I teach involves saying words directly related to sexuality.

      You just gotta say ’em. Say them clearly and with confidence. Your audience will take their cues from you. If you get embarrassed or feel like it’s inappropriate, so will your audience. If you act like it is what it is, so will the people listening to you (or at least they’ll pretend to).

      Have the courage of your convictions! If it’s worth having the conversation, then have it. If you’re worried it’s inappropriate, the whole conversation is inappropriate, not just the word.

      Reply ↓
        1. Leenie*

          Yes, that one is a Hax-ism. I feel like Alison is getting to the point where if she wants to say, “asshole,” she’ll just say it. Or I could just be projecting my own 2020’s state of mind onto Alison.

          Reply ↓
        2. fhqwhgads*

          None of the phrases mentioned in this thread originated with either advice column. It’s all existing slang.

          Reply ↓
  4. OldTiredRN*

    One of the greatest things about being retired is no longer having to fake interest in March Madness in order to be seen as a team player.

    “Sex worker” is the perfectly clear phrase to use.

    Reply ↓
    1. Nightengale*

      I walked into work one day and a friendly coworker asked if I was interested in brackets. I asked if he meant the kind you hang on walls to support shelving or the kind that work like parenthesis.

      He said it was about basketball and he didn’t think it was my thing but he did want to make sure I was invited if interested

      And that was how I first learned about march madness. That was a good place to work. Football was actually the big deal there if you rooted for the opposing team but it was fine to just opt out of it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Elizabeth West*

        I work with construction specs and if someone asked me about brackets, my brain would immediately go to unedited master sections. Or possibly AAM’s Worst Boss competition.

        Reply ↓
      1. RVA Cat*

        This. My interest began and ended with my alma mater getting in but losing in the first round.

        That said, the hometown rival school is in the *women’s* tournament and two of our major state schools made the round of 32. I’d love to see brackets going around for this one for a change.

        Reply ↓
      2. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

        I happen to have attended a university that’s 1) almost always highly ranked in men’s basketball and 2) universally despised, so I sometimes get ragged on for not participating in the brackets at work. Hey, I managed to ignore this when I went there, so I can certainly do it now! (To be fair, I was a grad student, so the basketball mania wasn’t quite as wild, but it was there. I saw a few games in bars or someone’s apartment because that’s what my friends chose to do that evening, but I never went in-person. I don’t have a rich alum in the family and camping in tents for days to get a ticket is not for me!)

        Reply ↓
    3. Ginger Cat Lady*

      One year (early to mid 90s, I think) I was pressured to submit one because I was the only one who had not done it. So I filled one out. If it wasn’t a team I had heard was good at basketball, I just picked the team that came first alphabetically. And I was baffled there wasn’t a team called “Yukon” because I had heard so many people say they predicted them to win.
      Anyway I came in second for the whole company. Everyone was amazed at my ability to pick upsets.
      It’s the only time I’ve ever done it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Academic Hellscape*

        “Yukon” has me laughing! That’s awesome – and really I think not knowing anything HELPS in March Madness!

        Reply ↓
        1. Christmas Carol*

          And I had a friend that filled out a bracked one year according to which of the team colors she liked better in each match up. As I recall, she did quite well.

          Reply ↓
          1. Curiouser and Curiouser*

            My favorite is always “which mascot would win in a fight”. You do better than you think!

            Reply ↓
      3. Curiouser and Curiouser*

        I work for a sports media company. I watch an ungodly amount of college basketball every year. I have favorites, and opinions, and meticulously fill out my bracket.

        Last year I was beaten by my 1-year-old nephew. March Madness is beautiful. LOL

        Reply ↓
        1. AJB*

          My four year old is likely to beat us all in the family bracket challenge this year. His picks are mostly whatever name was more fun for him to say.

          Reply ↓
      4. metadata minion*

        I was so confused about “Yukon” for years! And to make it even more embarrassing, I was aware that it was in Connecticut, and was baffled as to why it was called that.

        Reply ↓
      5. iglwif*

        UConn confused the heck out of me for quite a while. (My spouse is big into March Madness; I am … profoundly uninterested. So I hear it in the background and understand almost nothing.)

        Because I live in Canada and I *know* that there are no universities in Yukon and if there were, they would not be part of an American basketball league.

        Reply ↓
      6. The OG Sleepless*

        I won our bracket at work one year! I don’t know anything about college basketball except that my grad school alma mater is mediocre at it, so I do things like: picking Duke and Kentucky to win a lot because I know they’re good, Gonzaga to win some because I think their name is cool, and Wisconsin to win some because I went to a couple of conferences there and I like the city. Most years I do terrible, but once I won a quick $10.

        Reply ↓
      7. Names are Hard*

        I don’t do sports, but I almost always fill out a bracket if we do one at work. I just pick whichever one I feel like. I think it’s because I’ve come close to winning a few times even though it’s completely random. I don’t like basketball, but I do like prizes.

        Reply ↓
    4. Turquoisecow*

      Unless OP works in a school or a church or something I think “sex worker” is a totally benign phrase.

      I have never participated in sports betting things but maybe it’s easier to avoid when female. Although my husband cares less about sports than I do and I don’t think he has an issues at work just not participating in like Super Bowl pools and whatnot.

      Reply ↓
    5. Bitte Meddler*

      The only March Madness bracket bet thingy I participated in was the first one after people started returning to the office. Everyone who wanted to play put in $20 with the money going toward a lunch for the participants. The winner got to pick the restaurant.

      There were people on my team who ate out every day, and people like me who would join maybe once a month. I was fine with having someone else choose where I would spend my lunch money on that one day when I joined the group.

      Reply ↓
  5. Just Thinkin' Here*

    OP #4 – I would ask for a copy of their financials or some other annual report provided for the donors and board. Depending on the non-profit, you can also do a search to determine how much they rely on Federal grant money. If they have any public facing web site, recent news articles, Charity Navigator (if a charity), and on the IRS Tax Exempt tax filings for Charities and Non-Profits, you want to look at their Part VIII, line 1e for Government Grants.

    Reply ↓
    1. Pickles*

      You can probably find their financials online too. Unless you are in a leadership position straight up asking for a copy of the financials seems a little much in an interview.
      I think the conversation is a better measure.
      Any government or nonprofit job is at risk in one way or another right now. Buckle up it’s crazy out there

      Reply ↓
      1. Moose*

        I agree that a conversation should be plenty; I work for a nonprofit and would have no problem answering that question, including details on how long our current funding will last if it isn’t renewed & where to find our latest budget report. If a nonprofit is dodgy about funding, that’s a red flag.

        Reply ↓
        1. RW*

          I got a job at a non-profit recently and just asked something like “I’m curious about how funding works, can you tell me a little?” which gave me enough info for my purposes – and would certainly open up for more specific questions if you needed. In my situation that was plenty, but that’s a non-US non-profit that’s been running for 30 years and has a good reputation in the community, which is a different beast atm

          Reply ↓
        2. legal aid lifer*

          Agreed, have worked for multiple nonprofits and funding is a totally normal question, both for job applicants and informational interviews. It’s important.

          Reply ↓
      3. Sloanicota*

        This was what I was coming here to say. Anyone who applies to a job at any nonprofit should take a look at their 990s, which are public – if not on the charity’s own website, you should just google “charity + 990” and they should be on something like Guidestar. You should also look at the financial section of their annual report. It may not be completely obvious what percent of the income is from public funding, so that is a fair question to ask, but you can get a sense of their overall position without asking them in the interview.

        Reply ↓
      4. MsM*

        Yeah, if they don’t have at least some publicly available information on their major donors and/or funding mix, I’d consider that a yellow flag to begin with. Definitely still worth asking in the interview, though.

        Reply ↓
      5. Smithy*

        Yeah – as someone in the nonprofit space this is correct.

        Because so much financial information is available publicly – such as annual audits, tax filings, and in some cases even budgets – asking for a copy of their financials might indicate you want even more than that. If nothing else, it may indicate areas where there will just be more time needed for someone to adjust to the larger nonprofit professional world.

        And also – that 100% it’s crazy out there. It’s entirely appropriate to ask about an organization’s funding mix, but I do think that places are also looking for people able to cope with an increased degree of uncertainty. I did recently interview someone where that when they said the vast majority of all their funding was from the NIH – I decided that their potential instability wasn’t right for me (which who knows, maybe is or isn’t the correct read). But I think it’s better balancing someone doing their due diligence vs appearing nervous.

        I know someone who works for a nonprofit that is 100% funded by their own endowment, and they’re concerned about what some proposed legislation about endowments could mean for them. Just to say that lots of folks right now have questions and concerns.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sloanicota*

          And FYI for OP’s benefit, in a perfect world, nonprofits are funded partly through individual giving (membership/major donor) partly through grants (which are not all public) and partly through corporate donations or some kind of fee for service model – and would have some kind of endowment funds saved. In reality, many nonprofits are very uneven, often too heavily reliant on grants. Right now I would agree it would be concerning to apply with a nonprofit that was heavily reliant on government grants to pay the bills, but at any time, a purely grant-funded position is something of a concern. (because they may have guaranteed funding for a year, which may or not be sufficient for you to feel comfortable).

          Reply ↓
    2. Lifelong student*

      charity tax returns are available on Guidestardotorg. That can provide a job seeker with lots of information.

      Reply ↓
      1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

        ProPublica dot org will link to several years of recent 990s for any nonprofit, without making you create an account. (I don’t remember whether Candid/Guidestar will.)

        Caveat: I don’t think nonprofits are required to make their Schedule B, list of contributors, publicly available. But, unless the nonprofit is super tiny, they probably have an annual report listing at least their larger contributors, and/or a link on their website for partners, supporters, sponsors, donors, etc.

        Personally, I would do this in addition to having a conversation, so you could be informed about the basics of their funding landscape before the interview and structure your questions accordingly.

        Reply ↓
    3. tgif*

      All of this, and also you can use the usaspending dot gov website to see what federal grants the organization has received and from which agencies. I’m a federal employee and have to check grant recipient status of organizations as a routine part of my job, and it’s the first database I check.

      Reply ↓
    4. learnedthehardway*

      The OP could just ask how the organization is funded, and what the proportions are. That’s something I’ve provided to candidates for non-profit roles I’ve recruited. Usually, the non-profit leadership are very aware of where their funding comes from, and quick to demonstrate that it is stable (if it is).

      Which brings me to the point that if the non-profit is not willing to discuss where their funding generally comes from (ie. in macro terms – not disclosing specific donors), I would have reservations about accepting a role with them.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Although to be honest, if an applicant asked me those kinds of questions apparently not realizing the information is all publicly available, I would take this as a sign that they’re not very experienced with nonprofits. I would certainly just tell them kindly about the 990, but it’s a bit outsider-y. It would be a bit like a government applicant not understanding the public pay scales and either asking a lot of questions about the range without seeming to have looked it up, or pushing for things that don’t make sense, like staying at the same step level but pushing for money beyond the range.

        Reply ↓
    5. CJ*

      That’s what I was thinking – when I’ve applied to work at NPOs, part of my background prep research is to check Charity Navigator and to try to find the NPO’s 501(c) and Form 990 documents. (I’ve only applied to US NPOs, so the forms will be different elsewhere.)

      Reply ↓
  6. Anon for today*

    Letter #3 just made me panic for a second. I’ve been recently diagnosed and medicated for ADHD, and it struck me that pre-employment drug tests probably test for amphetamines. I’ve never had to deal with potentially testing positive for something that might be prohibited. I agree with Alison that a lot of employees, especially office workers (like me) don’t need to be drug tested, but a lot of employers still do it. Yikes! I’m going to go look through the AAM archives because I’m pretty sure I remember this topic coming up in the past.

    Reply ↓
    1. OldTiredRN*

      Drug testing companies have an MRO or medical review officer. If they receive positive or questionable results, the MRO contacts the patient to discuss any prescription meds that may affect findings.

      Reply ↓
      1. Anon for today*

        Thank you for this info. I could have sworn that AAM had already addressed whether to mention a potential odd drug test result ahead of time, but I couldn’t find it, so thanks for easing my mind.

        Reply ↓
      2. PreEmploymentTesting*

        This was not my experience. Thankfully I’ve only ever had one pre-employment drug test, but it didn’t matter that I had a prescription, positive was positive. I was expected to pre-declare any expectations of testing positive with explanation if I wanted the company to consider the reason in how they acted on the results. And I wasn’t told exactly what drugs were being tested for, so for all I know the whole thing was just a way to get medical information from prospective employees. It was not a good experience.

        Reply ↓
        2. Jelizabug*

          Our company is required to do drug testing for Federally regulated safety sensitive positions (commercial driving). The chain of custody forms provided to the drivers after their test typically list what’s being tested for, or name the type of “panel” that’s being used. For ours, we do a 5-panel test, which looks for five drugs and their metabolites. You can usually look up what’s included in the basic 5- and 6-panel tests. Most companies won’t take the time to create their own panels.

          Anyway, just a thought for future reference… you can check your chain of custody form and/ or ask the clinic what drug panel they’re testing, and that will help you know what to search for online. Sorry you had a bad experience previously!

          Reply ↓
        3. I'm just here for the cats!!*

          I’ve had a similar experience. I had to list all the medications I was on. The ironic thing is that that workplace was crawling with drugs. People brought Marijuana (not legal in my state) in to work, some would even smoke it outside in their cars. There were people selling prescription medication, and team leads getting high from OTC meds. If they randomly drug tested people, they would have lost about 15% of their crew! Thankfully we were a call center and no one operated machines.

          Reply ↓
        4. JustaTech*

          It’s really interesting that you were expected to pre-declare – a friend of mine attempted to pre-declare with his ADHD meds and the testing company (or maybe his employer, I don’t remember) was like “we don’t want to hear it unless you test positive”.

          Which is so confusing!

          Reply ↓
      3. DJ Abbott*

        The people doing the test are usually well aware of potential cross-reactions. I remember doing one, probably in 2011, and discussing this with the person doing the test. There was potential that my allergy medicine could show a false positive, but luckily it didn’t.

        Reply ↓
      4. sparkle emoji*

        Some drug testing services will also allow you to flag concerns ahead of time. I live in a state that has legalized medical marijuana, and I deal with drug testing as a part of onboarding new employees. For those with med cards, they can mention them on the paperwork at the testing center. The same is true for anyone taking prescriptions like ADHD medications that could trigger a positive result. They may ask for the prescription at some point, so it can help to have the details with you. It will make the drug test slower to come back, but it’s not necessarily going to make it so you can’t get a job.

        Reply ↓
        1. The OG Sleepless*

          I posted about this here years ago because at the time I took a higher than usual dose of a sleep medication. I wasn’t sure if I should skip it for a couple of days. The commentariat told me to go ahead and take them, but take the Rx bottle with me to the test center. Sure enough, I asked the testing person, “I take a sleep medication, do you want to see it?” She just said that if anything turned up positive she’d take a look and make a note. Nothing did, and that was that.

          Reply ↓
      5. darsynia*

        Just a note: some companies are very, very stupid, and don’t have provisions for this. Usually the kind that DIY a lot of stuff. Anyone new to the workforce and takes ADHD and similar meds that might show up on drug tests should know that not every company handles this well, and it’s NOT your fault that’s the case, and you didn’t do anything wrong.

        Reply ↓
      6. HR Exec Popping In*

        Yes, when you complete the drug test you inform them of each of the medications you are on so that they can accurately interpret the results.

        Reply ↓
        1. Totally Normal Spaceship (they/them)*

          Isn’t this likely to introduce problems if you take certain medications that are usually prescribed for stigmatized conditions, though?

          Reply ↓
          1. HR Exec Popping In*

            The hiring company doesn’t see this info, the drug test provider collects this info and stores it separately.

            Reply ↓
        2. fine-tipped pen aficionado*

          This isn’t a universal practice; in my experience they company administering the drug test (which is not typically the company actually performing the test but the middleman between the lab and your job) will reach out if the type of test you took triggered something that could be attributed to a prescribed medication and request prescriptions. It’s extremely imperfect because most of these companies are… not great. Which is one piece of why drug testing is so controversial; even if you agree with the goal of not employeeing people who use any kind of drug, our testing technology and infrastructure simply does not achieve that goal. That got off topic but just wanted to clarify that it doesn’t work that way everywhere.

          Reply ↓
      7. Bitte Meddler*

        Yup, that’s been my experience with employment drug tests and my Adderall.

        I test postive for amphetimines, give them my doctor’s contact info (or, in one instance, my pharmacy’s contact info) and sign a form saying I give the testing company permission to talk to my doc about this specific test result.

        Easy-peasy.

        Reply ↓
    2. alto*

      i take medication for adhd as well, and an internship a few years back did drug testing (solely for workers comp purposes) – i preempted that by asking my psychiatrist at the time to write me a note saying that i do take meds that may show up on drug tests. she kept it pretty vague and didn’t mention the specific condition but if you’re worried maybe that’s something you could look into doing as well

      Reply ↓
      1. Xanna*

        ADHD meds are so incredibly common it wouldn’t be something that would even occur to me to worry about as someone who’s been medicated for a decade.

        In the very unlikely scenario they can’t tell the difference between meth and Ritalin (which again would truly be shocking to me in 2025) I feel like a quick call from the doctor’s office would clear it up?

        Reply ↓
        1. Anonymouse*

          I do have a friend who was fired a few years ago from a retail position for their prescribed ADHD meds showing up on the pre-employment drug test – it happens, although thankfully rarely

          Reply ↓
        2. Seeking Second Childhood*

          They could well be concerned about ADHD meds because taking it without a prescription is not legal.

          Reply ↓
    3. amoeba*

      Little bit OT, but just wanted to add – eating poppy seed can show up positive in drug testing as well, so maybe don’t have that poppy seed cake the night before the test! Especially the nice stuff we have in Germany that’s basically 70% poppy seeds…
      (Pretty sure that isn’t an urban legend, just googled it to make sure – but correct me if I’m wrong)

      Reply ↓
      2. Sashaa*

        Loads of stories about people testing positive for opioids after eating poppy seeds – famously a British newsreader (Angela Ripon – 70 year old very staid establishment figure) took part in a tv experiment where she ate poppy seed bagels every day for a week and tested positive.

        We’ve also had prison governors test positive (as an experiment as inmates were complaining they were being given poppy seed bread as part of their prison meals and then were testing positive), to the point where poppy seeds are now banned from UK prison meals.

        So yeah, it’s a real thing.

        Reply ↓
      3. Lady Lessa*

        I don’t think that it is an urban legend because I’ve read of mothers who just gave birth having their baby taken because of that. For search purposes, I think that the Washington Post is probably my source and it was several years ago.

        Reply ↓
        1. Elitist Semicolon*

          It’s definitely not an urban legend; there have been studies on this. Including one that made clear in the methods that they were using a specific Ukrainian poppy seed recipe – not a Slovak, Polish, or whatever else recipe.

          Reply ↓
      4. Lissajous*

        It’s a real thing, but should only show up as positive on the first pass, instant test – which should then be sent to a lab, and more detailed analysis will show that’s what it’s poppy seeds, not opioids, and is a false positive.

        On-site drug testing is the norm in my industry, due to being around and working with heavy machinery, nasty chemicals, open tanks etc. (Mining.)
        If you test negative on an instant test you’re definitely drug free, but it is known they throw false positives for a few things. If you test positive, you’re stood down temporarily until the detailed lab analysis comes back. If it was a false positive you’re back on (and paid for the stand down time), if it was a true positive you are unemployed, and not paid from the date of the initial test.
        You do have to state any medication you have taken before the test, whether prescription or over the counter.

        Pre-employment drug testing is typically collected at a doctor’s office and processed by a lab straight off, so you don’t get the initial false positive.

        Reply ↓
        1. Elsewise*

          I once applied for a hiring job at an employment agency, and was told part of my duties would be collecting samples for drug testing!

          Reply ↓
      5. Elizabeth West*

        When job hunting, I avoid poppy seed anything — cake, dressing, bagels — for that reason. You never know.

        Last week I went to a bagel place at lunch and got one to take home that was nearly black with seeds. It was fantastic, but I still felt a little uneasy eating it!

        Reply ↓
        1. ICodeForFood*

          I, too, avoided anything with poppy seeds in it for years as I was trying to get out of an unpleasant job. But I never thought about my allergy meds, and (after-the-fact) was really afraid that I’d tested positive the last time I had to do a pre-employement drug test. Luckily, the allergy meds didn’t show up and I got the job… was there 12 years until I retired last year.

          Reply ↓
    4. EngineeringFun*

      I work for a govt contractor and we CANNOT use THC or CBD even though it is legal in our state. You cannot have a medical card. It’s illegal at the federal level. Period. I like me job so I agree to this….

      Reply ↓
      1. ScruffyInternHerder*

        Yup, this is a thing. Medical card or no, you cannot use if you’re working with a federal contractor (and in my case it, it was that we did federal contract work. I don’t know if that was excessive care on the company’s part, or if the federal government considers it “you do any work for us, even $1, you’re considered a federal contractor and subject to those rules”. I just knew that the rules were “its illegal at the federal level so no”.)

        Reply ↓
      2. Elizabeth West*

        I was wondering what would happen if you had a federal job in a place where weed is legal, and it’s all around wherever you go, and then you get tested. Would walking through secondhand vape smoke make you test positive?

        Reply ↓
        1. metadata minion*

          Unless you’re living in close proximity with someone who smokes a lot, I don’t think it’s likely to affect anything. This obviously is going to vary a lot by community, but I live in a state where weed is legal and I periodically catch a whiff of it. It’s not like there’s a reek of pot smoke across the entire state :-b

          Reply ↓
      3. Coffee Slayer*

        As a contractor for NASA I had to do have a drug screen for similar reasons. I was in an admin position, but I also had to work in testing areas. I had to take special safety classes and knew never to touch any buttons. No, I wasn’t welding liquid fuel tanks. But, I was working in an area where safety was a big issue.

        The work was great, but I did freak at times when the firetrucks would roll in. We usually had warning before the big booms.

        Reply ↓
    5. Mid*

      I’ve been drug screened for several jobs, using different testing methods. All of them asked me to disclose any prescriptions that might show up on the drug test and to be prepared to get a doctors note if needed. I have ADHD and have taken prescription stimulants for many years now, so I always inform them of that. Depending on what kind of test they’re doing, rapid tests often just test positive for amphetamines and can’t always distinguish between types. Also, depending on the position, testing positive for commonly abused prescription medications also needed a doctors note. (Testing positive for certain anxiety and stimulant medications requires proof of prescription when I was working at a pharmacy.)

      But again, in all instances, I was specificity asked to disclose my medications, and for all of them, testing was done by a third party so my employee didn’t know anything other than if I passed or failed.

      Reply ↓
      1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

        Who asks for the disclosure? The employer or the third party performing the test?

        I think I would be more inclined to disclose medical history to an independent scientific body than a potential boss. But where I live we have very strong privacy laws, and drug testing for employment is almost unheard of (I’ve never known anyone take a drug test outside elite sport or being arrested).

        Reply ↓
        1. Spreadsheet Queen*

          IME, the testing lab provides a form to fill out prior to the test. You are not providing the information directly to the employer and if everything checks out, the employer never sees any of the information on the form. If there is a positive, I’m not entirely sure how that works. Presumably, the testing agency does the verification (requesting you get medical documentation from your doctor or whatever they do) and the employer still doesn’t see anything – it’s just a longer period of time before they are notified of pass/fail. (I think I’ve only been drug-tested once, and it was a good 25 years ago, so my information may not be current.)

          Reply ↓
    6. WillowSunstar*

      I have to take sleeping pills at night (I usually take valerian and it’s non-prescription), but do get nighttime anxiety because my apartment building is not as good as advertised and has rodents in it. This isn’t something I should have to worry about coming up on a drug test as a false positive, but now am going to be concerned. So I should endure a potentially sleepless night if I know I’m going to have a drug test?

      Reply ↓
      1. Seashell*

        It would have to be something they’re testing for, like cannabis, alcohol, opioids, or benzodiazepines (like Valium or Xanax.) I don’t think anything over-the-counter (unless you’re counting alcohol/pot as over-the-counter) is commonly tested for in the US.

        Reply ↓
    7. wavefunction*

      I disclosed to the testing company when I went in to give my hair sample (preemptively mentioning it was what I needed to do for my anxiety). I just said I’m on dextroamphetamine for ADHD and knew it might show up on the test, and would be happy to provide a prescription if needed. It worked out fine!

      Reply ↓
    8. Broadway Duchess*

      You should be okay. I used to administer pre-employment drug screens and we advised everyone who was on prescription medications to bring proof. Even if they didn’t bring their scripts, our MRO (Medical Review Officer) would call the patient to confirm. We never sent that info to the company; we’d just indicate if the result was supported or not.

      Reply ↓
    9. Pointy's in the North Tower*

      The drug testing place asks if you take anything that might show up.

      Medical is legal in my state. My partner recently did a pre-employment drug screen and had to declare his med card (and prove he had it) when he took the test. Since he did all that, his positive was no big deal. Friends who take ADHD meds do the same for their screens and take their bottle with them.

      As long as you can show it’s prescribed to you, you’re fine.

      Reply ↓
      1. Bast*

        Unfortunately, marijuana still carries a stigma for some employers and it shows. Marijuana is legal both medically and recreationally in my state. My sister has a medical marijuana card, and was rejected from a job after being accepted due to the drug screen testing positive for marijuana. They did not care about her medical card or a physician’s note. This was not a federal job; it was sort of like a customer service rep position for a large retailer so nothing where she was operating a forklift or anything even remotely dangerous.

        My state has made it *technically* illegal to not hire someone based solely on the fact that they are a medical marijuana user, but we all know that just because people aren’t supposed to doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. I’d still prepare for some employers to be stuffy and old fashioned.

        Reply ↓
  7. RedinSC*

    LW4, you can also check the non profit’s 990 (search non profit name 990 and/or go to Candid/Guidestar)

    That will show you, in the statement of revenue where their money comes from, generally. It specifically calls out Government grants. Now, it doesn’t say whether that is state, local or federal, but they’re all affected right now, so this could show you how this non profit gets their funding.

    Reply ↓
    1. RedinSC*

      Oh also, to get the transparency seal for Guidestar, the organization may have a link to their 990 on their website. They’ll have their annual report linked too, usually. AND many non profit have what’s called an honor roll, listing out their main donors.

      All of that is good to review before an interview anyway, so take a look!

      Reply ↓
      1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

        Propublica has 2023 for most orgs — a lot haven’t filed their 2024 yet. So it’s not the most recent, but if you look at 3-4 you will see a pattern (if the nonprofit lists their contributors). Ideally they’ll also have an annual report or a page on their website listing contributors.

        Reply ↓
  8. NotAnArtCritic*

    Re:LW3 and the reply: It sounds to me like the LW is referring to the Peth-test, which is a blood test that actually reveals level of alcohol consumtion over time, not current intoxication.

    Reply ↓
    1. allathian*

      Mmm yeah, and what business is that of the employer, I wonder… I can understand testing for current impairment, but anyting else’s none of their business.

      Reply ↓
      1. amoeba*

        Although to be honest, unless you do a surprise test, I don’t really see the point of testing for impairment, either, at least not in the context of alcohol – even for quite heavy drinkers, it’s probably doable to not drink, like, the day of the drug test, and it will tell you very little about what they’ll do once on the job?

        Reply ↓
        1. Tio*

          Because if they’re so far in that they pop positive on a spot impairment test that saves you a whole lot of trouble down the line. And yes, people do. They can’t help themselves and think things along the lines of “It’s just a little, it’ll be fine.” Addiction is powerful and if they’re that far into it better to cull them before it’s a serious safety issue. It’s similar to how some scams are done so poorly – if you fall for such an obvious scam, then you’re clearly an easy mark and they know they can probably get a lot out of you.

          Reply ↓
    2. Anon for reasons in comment*

      Unless you are gonna be driving or operating machinery for long, long hours, I would love to know what employers think is the point of a test like that… I’m currently trying to shake a nasty habit of using alcohol to self-medicate. I’ve never let it affect work and I wouldn’t consider myself someone with alcohol use disorder, but I have no idea whether a workplace would use the result of that test against me even while I’m trying to stop drinking completely

      Reply ↓
      1. hbc*

        I hate the way drug testing works in a lot of ways, but heavy alcohol use is almost certainly more associated with risk for on-the-job injury or performance issues than a lot of the other drugs tested for, especially marijuana. The main point is to reduce liability, so if someone drives a forklift into the wall (or stumbles in the path of one on the way back to the office) after a liquid lunch, the employer can show that they made some effort to keep impaired people out of danger.

        Reply ↓
        1. I'm just here for the cats!!*

          Is the test going to show how often they drink or how much? If someone drinks every night but comes to work sober how is that affecting the job or risk for on the job injury.

          Reply ↓
      2. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

        “operating machinery for long long hours” describes most of the employees at OP’s prospective job. It makes sense for several reasons (morale, practicality, etc) to test everybody in that case.

        Reply ↓
        1. sparkle emoji*

          Yeah, unfortunately this sounds like it’s something that’s policy for everyone because it really does matter for most of the people working there, and they didn’t think to carve out the office jobs. If it helps LW3, it’s possible they may be less rigid about things for the office team vs those on the floor.

          Reply ↓
        2. Same anon again*

          Maybe a better explanation of what I was going for, now I haven’t just woken up: it still presents an issue for people who are recently sober. The stigma is still very real even if it doesn’t materially affect your job at all

          Reply ↓
      3. Qwerty*

        This is a manufacturing job, where working with machinery is very common. It is easier to pre-emptively screen out people who may have problem with being sober / unimpaired / not hung-over than to try to catch them out while on the job. Even if you aren’t driving the forklift or operating the robot yourself, being less than alert causes safety issues on a manufacturing floor.

        It is not about trying to use someone’s personal life against them, but ensuring safety in the workplace. Manufacturing workplaces often have many ways people can be killed, crushed, or maimed. Humans tend to not be good at self-assessments, so by the time a problem is caught something bad has usually happened. This is very different from a remote office worker environment.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lisa*

          In the case of the LW, it’s not a manufacturing job, it’s a clerical job with a manufacturing company. LW will not be operating heavy or dangerous machinery.

          Reply ↓
    3. JustCuz*

      I work in manufacturing, and the only time I ever came across anything other than a urine test, was like 20 years ago at a pharm company. This was because they were making meds out of controlled substances. You had to do hair and blood testing. I opted out as I found it way too invasive. But usually you are going to just get a standard urine test. Manufacturing is pretty notorious for being about 30 years behind current work-place norms though, so you never know what you are going to get.

      Reply ↓
      1. Strive to Excel*

        They also are one of the workplaces where it matters more. Show up impaired to an office job? You might do something dumb but your impact is unlikely to be more than looking like a dunce in front of your office mates. Show up impaired to a warehouse job? You are now putting yourself and others in immanent bodily risk, especially if you’re working a forklift. Same deal with construction. And of course, both those industries tend to have more people self-medicating because years of physical labor takes it out of a person much more than an office job.

        Reply ↓
  9. Goreygal*

    OP 1
    You said you haven’t heard from the new organisation yet about the interview results? So at this stage your just presuming you didn’t get the job based on what your boss said? I’d suggest you mentally delete what he says from the whole process and follow up on the interview as per Alison’s usual recommendations.

    Reply ↓
    1. RVA Cat*

      100% this.
      Plus the OP should step up efforts to apply elsewhere.

      (Anyone else wondering if jerkwagon boss applied for the same job and didn’t even get interviewed?)

      Reply ↓
        1. Hazelfizz*

          The order of events here implies that OP’s boss tanked their application. First the interview, then the reference check, then your referrer says to you that they informed the new org you weren’t a fit.

          Reply ↓
      2. Metal Gru*

        I don’t think it’s that the boss is interested in the job, but that he’s promised someone else to ‘influence’ the hiring committee into hiring them.

        Reply ↓
      4. Elizabeth West*

        Yes, and my eyebrows also went up at the new org notifying OP’s current boss that they had interviewed. 0_0

        Reply ↓
      5. Pay no attention...*

        yes, I thought that immediately. Soon to be ex boss is absolutely livid that one of his reports applied and interviewed for the same position and I wonder if he didn’t get invited for an interview.

        Reply ↓
      6. Betsy S.*

        My first thought was that he’d been rejected for *something* at the new place, not necessarily the same job. He sounds bitter and clinging to his last shreds of power.

        Reply ↓
  10. niknik*

    RE #3: Are there any tests for Marijuana that work like the regular tests for alcohol, that is, to test for being currently under the influence ?
    I’m asking because, while i think that recreational use of any legal stimulant is no business of the employer IMO, i understand that we don’t want people to operate machinery etc. while being high (and even for office jobs, being too impaired to do their job).

    Reply ↓
    1. cathy*

      I don’t think so. Saliva testing would do this, but I don’t know if they’ve been able to make tests as sensitive/reliable as needed.

      Reply ↓
    2. spcepickle*

      There are not test for marijuana that work like alcohol test. It is a big deal in states that have legalized and people driving high. The other thing about marijuana is it affects different people really differently. So while we have agreed to a blood alcohol level at which you should not be driving, it would be hard to find a similar correlation for pot.
      The best we have right now is field sobriety tests.

      Reply ↓
    3. Good Enough For Government Work*

      There are roadside tests for being high; they’re done at the same time as a breathalyser, so I assume so.

      Reply ↓
      1. MassMatt*

        That the police are performing some sort of test for marijuana doesn’t mean it’s either effective or reliable.

        Years ago there was a trend of police seizing cash that had been tested to show cocaine residue on it (hello, conflict of interest). A case fell apart when the defense performed the test on the cash of jurors and court officers. Virtually everyone’s cash had cocaine residue. You’re not responsible for what people do with cash before you get it.

        Reply ↓
    2. Mackenna*

      How long ago was this? If it wasn’t all that long, why don’t you follow up with the person that interviewed you? Maybe they just haven’t gotten around to selecting the candidate yet. Things can get busy in mergers. If you can get through to someone sensible at the new org, you may be able to counter whatever your idiot boss/old org said to them and get back in the running. Don’t just take this lying down.

      Even if they have finalised selection of another candidate, you should say something about idiot boss making those remarks in the meeting and how they were embarrassing and completely wrong. It may help them understand to take his comments about any other roles and candidates with a grain of salt – including his.

      Reply ↓
    3. MK*

      Is this kind of comment helpful to anyone? We have no way of knowing whether he would or wouldn’t, so it’s just pointless speculation. Maybe it’s true, but also maybe he dislikes OP personally, or he is bitter because the new organization has no position for him or refused to interview him for a higher position.

      Reply ↓
      1. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

        I think it is helpful because it names a very common dynamic that is worth recognising. Some people, including the LW, may not have thought of this and it could really help them reframe it.

        For example if it had knocked their confidence and made them less likely to apply for a similar job elsewhere in future, it might be useful to consider whether in fact the boss’s judgment was rooted in sexism, not a reflection on their skills at all.

        Reply ↓
        1. Andromeda*

          I think it is helpful for the same reasons, but sometimes it’s not that simple or visible. Awful Boss might have assumed he could freely talk down to LW in part because she is female, but maybe he doesn’t do anything openly discriminatory in the office.

          “He wouldn’t have done X if LW were a man” is a big assumption and one LW can likely prove or disprove by herself, because she knows her boss better than us. Which might even make her feel worse if she knows it isn’t true. (And even if it’s not true he could very much still be a sexist arsehole!)

          Reply ↓
        2. Dasein9 (he/him)*

          Yep. I’ve had a similar experience and was so deep in the trees I couldn’t see the forest until someone else pointed it out to me.

          Reply ↓
        3. MK*

          I may be nitpicking here, but it’s a different thing to suggest to OP that, not only is this behaviour inappropriate, especially from a manager, but also that the boss’ opinion that OP was out of line to even apply might be based on prejudice, than it is to deliver a snarky oneliner based on nothing.

          Reply ↓
          1. Observer*

            also that the boss’ opinion that OP was out of line to even apply might be based on prejudice, than it is to deliver a snarky oneliner based on nothing.

            The fact that the boss thought that the LW was out of line for even applying is a pretty solid indicator that there is something significantly off in the Boss’ thinking. So much so that “just” being a major league garden-variety jerk might not explain it.

            That’s not nothing.

            Reply ↓
      2. Another Fed*

        I immediately thought mediocre privilege reading that letter. He has WAY too much confidence in his own assessment of stuff that is 0 percent his area.

        Reply ↓
      3. Ginger Cat Lady*

        It absolutely is helpful, as it sheds light on the sexism. It’s only when people realize that sexism exists and that this is how it plays out in the workplace that anything can change.
        But of course, you’d probably prefer that women never talk about sexism so you can pretend it doesn’t exist, right dude?

        Reply ↓
        1. MK*

          I am a woman. Which goes to show how making assumptions when you don’t have information only serves to invalidate your argument.

          Shedding light on sexism is useful when you can actually point out the dynamic at play; crying sexism when you don’t have any indication of it (as in this letter) isn’t shedding light on anything, it’s just making you seem prejudiced yourself, and it makes more difficult to make the argument when there is a genuine case of sexism.

          Reply ↓
        2. Myrin*

          MK is a woman. As am I, and I also find that line of questioning can sometimes be helpful and sometimes not. It does get kind of tiresome when it’s brought out as a clearly intended “gotcha” (not towards an OP, but in general) simply because a man and a woman interact in a letter; and it’s especially unhelpful when it later turns out that an OP has intentionally changed genders in a letter (which has happened before) or that OP’s answer is that yes, indeed, the boss would absolutely say that same thing to a man (which has happened often before).

          Reply ↓
      4. Saturday*

        I don’t think it’s helpful either. We know nothing else about the boss. We can “wonder,” but we can wonder about all kinds of things… it doesn’t seem useful to the LW.

        Reply ↓
    4. Andromeda*

      Interesting — I didn’t read it as gendered (though it very much could be, or that could be part of it), I assumed she was trying to move to a more highly-regarded, competitive or senior type of role. Manager was upset that she had ideas “above her station”, maybe on the same seniority level as him or maybe just in a type of role he sees as having more social capital.

      I do wonder whether he’s got a pattern of being awful to women in particular. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s not even actively misogynistic himself but participates because he sees women as easier to control. LW might benefit from talking to other direct reports of his, if she’s directly under him, to try to establish what type of patterns he uses.

      Reply ↓
      1. Observer*

        Manager was upset that she had ideas “above her station”,

        Yes. But that, to me, is a huge red flag. I don’t know if it’s a matter of gender, as the LW doesn’t indicate their gender. But it *definitely* reads as bigoted in some way. Because getting bent out of shape about this kind of thing just does not make a lot of sense otherwise. I mean what does “above one’s station” mean anyway? It doesn’t compute unless you have some rigid ideas about this stuff.

        Reply ↓
      2. Observer*

        Would you have reacted this way if the boss were a woman

        Pretty much so. With one caveat. I’m not ready to insist that it’s misogyny. I could easily be a different form of bigotry.

        Reply ↓
    6. amoeba*

      Eh, it’s certainly something that’s worth thinking about if you’re in that situation yourself, but there’s no way of telling from the facts we have. Yes, it’s a common thing, unfortunately, but there’s also loads of equal opportunity arseholes out there – I have a former boss who would have most definitely also done that to men. I mean, I guess that makes it less sexist, not sure it makes it less bad in general though…

      Reply ↓
    7. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      I don’t see the OP’s gender listed anywhere. And this type of thing can happen to everyone. Yes women tend to get this treatment more, but I’ve seen similar situations with men too. Sometimes it’s a classist thing, or an age thing (either younger people or older people), and of course race can play a factor too.

      Reply ↓
    8. learnedthehardway*

      I didn’t get any impression of the gender of either person. The boss is just an ass, full stop.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lenora Rose*

        The boss is referred to as he. The only other mention of gender is quoting the boss in this bit, but it implies the LW is a woman:

        “we don’t want a llama groomer thinking she can be a llama whisperer when she’s never been involved in llama whispering here!” And looked directly at me.

        Reply ↓
  12. Niles "the Coyote" Crane*

    To the first LW, it hasn’t been that long. I would LOVE to see your boss’s face if you get the job and excel at it! (People successfully apply for stretch roles all the time! Otherwise how would anyone progress!?)

    At OldJob, I suggested to a more junior colleague that she apply for a job that came up. Her manager was annoyed she had dared to apply when she found out. She was a terrible micromanager and couldn’t see the talent and potential this colleague had.

    I did give her some interview tips in confidence but she got the job on merit. Her former manager had a big rant at the Director for hiring her apparently! But she has been fantastic in the role and completely transformed the entire area of work.

    I hope you write back to us with an update anyway.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bird names*

      Thanks for supporting your colleague! Who knows if she would have stayed longterm having to deal with that boss without this way out.

      Reply ↓
  13. Neptunesmoon*

    LW1 – sorry that your boss is an ass. Do you have any contacts in the new company who could vouch for you? Their voice might carry more weight, or at least help counter your boss. Often the new company wants to recruit people from the company being bought out to ensure continuity, but it sounds like your boss is trying to sabotage that. That could be helpful information for the new org.

    Years ago when my department was eliminated, I applied for a long-desired role in the same company. When they reached out to my boss, she gave me a terrible review and said I wasn’t a good fit. I was going to be unemployed! In my case the hiring manager had previously worked with me and knew my manager’s reputation, so I was still offered the job.

    Reply ↓
    1. Lauren*

      Same! I hope LW1 prints out Alison’s response on their last day, after getting a great new job elsewhere, and leaves it on the Jackwagon’s desk.

      Reply ↓
  15. Nobby Nobbs*

    You might be able to substitute generalized impairment tests for drug tests pre-employment, but never across the board. Most of the employment-related drug tests I’ve have to do have been triggered by an incident that’s already happened, and the drawbacks there are obvious. And even pre-employment, wouldn’t you risk crossing the ADA, especially for the office job the LW describes?

    Reply ↓
    1. EllenD*

      I don’t know about pre-employment drug tests, but I’m aware of one large transport operator in UK, that insists that their administrative and management staff have to comply with the same rules as those operating the transport system (drivers, signallers, operational matters, maintenance, etc). Since the operators have to have tests to ensure no long-term problems, they apply the rule to office based staff and require pre-employment tests. For operations staff, there was also random drug/alcohol tests to confirm everyone was obeying the rule about not drinking before turning up for shifts (no alcohol for 10-12 hours before shift). If found to be drunk, it was automatic suspension, leading to termination in most cases, as this is highly unionised sector steps had to be followed to avoid strikes.

      Reply ↓
      1. UKDancer*

        Yeah I’ve a friend who works in a back office function in Transport for London (which runs the public transport in London). All staff have to comply with the same rules as the drivers on this which includes drug and alcohol testing before shift.

        I mean my friend is never going to drive a tube train but it’s one of the things people just accept as part of working there.

        Outside transport and heavy industry testing is fairly unusual in the UK I think. I mean my white collar company expects us to be sober and fit to work, but I’ve never worked for anywhere that tests for it.

        Reply ↓
        1. londonedit*

          Yep, I have a friend who (many years ago) worked for a UK petrochemical company, and the rule for all of their facilities – whether that was an oil rig or the head office building in London – was that the health & safety guidelines applied to everyone. I can’t remember the exact details but I can remember my friend telling us that it was mandatory for employees to use the handrail when going up/down stairs, and that you weren’t allowed to carry any sort of beverage around the office building unless it was in a sealed mug with a lid. Sounds stupid when you’re working in an office job in the city, but the idea was that theoretically any member of staff could be required to visit any of the facilities, and if the H&S requirements were drilled into everyone as part of their working day, they’d already be operating in a safe manner should they need to visit one of the oil rigs or refineries or whatever.

          Reply ↓
          1. londonedit*

            Oh and I’d also agree that outside of these sorts of special cases (transport, heavy machinery, etc) drug/alcohol testing is really rare in the UK. You absolutely wouldn’t expect to be tested for drugs/alcohol in any sort of ordinary office job. Of course our employee handbook says we’re expected to turn up fit to work, but there’s no testing.

            Reply ↓
      2. Mallory Janis Ian*

        I work in the accounting department of facilities management at a university, and all the staff have to be drug tested the same as the guys who operate the heavy equipment, etc.

        Reply ↓
      3. FaintlyMacabre*

        Florida, and maybe some other states, offer an incentive (tax break, I think?) to employers who drug test. I had a drug test for every place I worked in FL, regardless of the position.

        Reply ↓
    2. Observer*

      And even pre-employment, wouldn’t you risk crossing the ADA, especially for the office job the LW describes?

      Why? The ADA expressly does not cover active use of illegal drugs. Any other reasonable medications (ie that don’t actually mess with someone’s ability to do their job) generally are handled with appropriate disclosure to the testing people.

      Reply ↓
  16. Defying Gravity*

    #2 – was intending to comment re the LW use of the term “prostitutes”, and was happy to see that Alison used the term “sex workers” in her response. I understand other terms are still common usage, but I’m glad to see the term sex workers get more used.

    Reply ↓
    2. Pixel*

      I was going to comment about this too! I’m really glad to see Alison using the term sex worker and to see most of the commenters using this word too. It’s much more respectful of the workers and doesn’t carry so much sexist baggage.

      Reply ↓
  17. dreamofwinter*

    Years ago I worked for a manufacturing company that had many Federal contracts. Drug testing was required for pre-employment because of the Federal involvement, and because of that, marijuana was cause for not being hired. It was legal in my state, but illegal at the Federal level.
    My recollection is that they did not have any requirement for ongoing testing, it was just the pre-employment hurdle.

    I also held a commercial driver’s license and drove large vehicles (again, many years ago), and the drug testing there is much more strict because of safety considerations. In addition to pre-employment testing, the company would pull random drivers each week or month for testing – you’d show up to a shift and the supervisor would be there to drive you to the lab.

    Reply ↓
  18. tiredfundraisergal*

    LW4 – I’m a nonprofit fundraiser, and have spend this month and last jobhunting (successfully! woohoo!) and the staff I have interviewed with are VERY eager to either: 1) identify themselves as not receiving federal money, and thus are unaffected by cuts; or 2) tell me the have/are receiving federal money, and list the ways they are currently trying to make up for these losses. It’s really stressful for all involved, but everyone I’ve spoken with has wanted to make clear how they intend to succeed without federal money, just like they’d want to tell a donor/private grantor/Local Mr/Ms Moneybags. You are totally within your right to ask, just like Allison says! Good luck!

    Reply ↓
  19. Who Plays Backgammon?*

    once when i applied to a nonprofit, a friend in nonprofit fundraising advised me to ask in the interview whether they had funding in place for the position for the next two years.

    Reply ↓
    1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

      Smart — “yes” is a good answer, “this position isn’t grant-funded” is even better. (For example, my position is pure overhead, so it’s not funded by grants, but my org has a revenue generating arm that supports our operational costs.)

      Reply ↓
  20. Bonkers*

    LW1: yes, your supervisor is a jackwagon. But what made me gasp is your coworkers! Et tu, Brute? Have some solidarity, people! Especially if you’re all losing your jobs in a few months, have some compassion.

    Reply ↓
    1. Texas Teacher*

      I read it as the coworkers expressing that the boss was inappropriate for his actions, not that they thought LW was in the wrong.

      Reply ↓
      2. Insert Clever Name Here*

        I’d initially read it the same way as Bonkers but on a second read I think you’re right — the others are telling OP that Boss was inappropriate, but unfortunately that’s compounding the embarrassment OP feels. OP, I hope you get the stretch job and that Boss winds up on his jackwagon!

        Reply ↓
        1. Workerbee*

          I still think it’s their way of showing compassion. Utter silence from coworkers could easily be misinterpreted as agreement with the boss as well, so they might as well let OP know verbally of their solidarity.

          Reply ↓
  21. Not Not Telling OP1 to TP Boss’s House*

    OP 1, the boss’s comment makes me worry that the new org asked him for a reference and he tanked your chances. Or since it’s a stretch job for you, maybe he’s going for it too. I don’t know if there’s anything you could do, but if the new org people say anything to you I’d just keep in mind that they’ve probably heard weird things and you might be able to set the record straight.

    Reply ↓
    2. Sloanicota*

      Since the new company is buying the old company, it’s pretty normal that they would ask the old bosses about options. If I’m understanding the bosses’ comments correctly, they actually expect to be involved in recommending old employees for the new roles. This does suck, especially since the boss is a jackwagon, but it’s more reasonable than in most cases since this is essentially a merger, it’s not like a typical interview. I still don’t think OP did anything wrong but apparently the management is envisioning a different process than just open applications. If I was really petty, I might send an email to the hiring manager at the new company saying I was “sorry I hadn’t understood I needed manager’s approval to apply, but it has now been explained that this was very inappropriate of me, sincere apologies.” This might (?) put the new company on notice if they feel differently than the current boss does about these roles. Of course if old boss is “safe” it might also just get you in more hot water.

      Reply ↓
    3. LW #1*

      Hey, it’s LW#1 – you are absolutely correct. I finally got ahold of the hiring manager yesterday, and she told me she had already offered the position to another applicant and that her not hiring me was based on my boss’s comments about my work and telling her I was not capable of the job.

      I did let her know I thought my experience and willingness to learn the parts of the job I wasn’t quite as familiar with would make me a good candidate, but the other applicant had already accepted. She did open up a new, lower level position for me which is a downgrade from my current position and current pay, so I’m still a little stuck in what to do next.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Is the second job with the skills you use every day still an option? It really stinks that your boss sunk your candidacy. You didn’t do anything wrong … I guess next time you might go to your management *before* you want something and talk about the higher level skills you have / want to cultivate / talk about where you might want see yourself in the future – but this boss probably always sucked and wouldn’t have been an advocate for you. I’m sorry, that sucks :(

        Reply ↓
      2. MsM*

        If it’s your only available option for now, so be it, but I’d be doing a pretty intensive external job search.

        Reply ↓
      3. Bird names*

        I’m sorry your boss interfered like that and hope you can land something that works for you and your career, whether that be with the current/new company or somewhere else completely.

        Reply ↓
      5. Miss Puggy*

        I could talk a lot of smack about my previous employer, but one absolute positive is that all three managers I worked under there did everything in their power to prepare people to move up in the organization. In a way, those managers treated their manager roles as if they were a parent preparing their offspring to leave the nest. Such a shame that your current manager is holding you back instead of building you up.

        Reply ↓
      6. Now I think you should TP Boss’s House*

        That sucks, big time. I wish I’d been wrong. The commenter who said that’s a natural question to ask the boss—yes, totally agree. And saying “I’m not sure she could handle that position” is also fair. But calling someone out in a meeting is a crummy move. LW, I do hope this new position you’re landing in is a jumping off point to greater things. I also hope the new company hears through the grapevine what a buffoon nugget this guy is and doesn’t hire him.

        Reply ↓
      9. Ellis Bell*

        Can you avoid him being a reference next time? If not, I’d explicitly mention that because of the job circumstances, your current manager doesn’t have much insight into your ability with Llama Whispering and you’d like to get back to using that skill. But, anyway, what a complete douche.

        Reply ↓
  22. Molly*

    I’m thinking drug screening is going to weed oot (no pun intended) an awful lot of candidates given the ubiquity of legal cannabis in many states.

    Reply ↓
    1. RegBarclay*

      I assumed that when weed was legalized in so many states that they’d finally do the research to come up with a test that can check for recent use. I was wrong. Not sure if it’s just not possible for scientific reasons, or if there’s no will on either the pro- or anti-legalization side to do so? But it’s really, really badly needed, especially when it comes to driving.

      Reply ↓
      1. Strive to Excel*

        My understanding is that the thing holding it back is this: are the lingering traces actually only lingering traces, or are they still potentially affecting the person’s decision making? And at what point in weed’s half-life do they stop affecting the decision making? That, and the BAC tests have been refined to the point where they’re quick and easy. You can get a reasonable baseline just from a blow test – not a perfect one, not an infallible one, but a reasonable one on average. My understanding is that most of the weed tests are still blood tests, which take a lot more time and effort to do. So it’s not just coming up with an effective test for recent use; it’s mass-producing it.

        I might be totally wrong though! I haven’t researched it as much as I could, since I live in a legalized state.

        Reply ↓
  23. Zoe's mom*

    LW3-Another reason they drug test is to reduce their liability. In the event they get sued due to an employee’s action they can say they did their due diligence.

    Reply ↓
    1. Daughter of Ada and Grace*

      I have sometimes wondered if rules like this were to make it harder for an employee fired for testing positive for drugs (by whatever definition the company uses) to claim that they were only tested/fired because of their (insert protected class here) and/or for retaliatory purposes. “You only tested me because I’m X!” strikes me as lot harder to prove when everyone gets tested.

      Reply ↓
      1. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

        Both of those are true.

        At the defense contractor I used to work for, they did quarterly random drug tests of a half-dozen employees. They had a policy that the security manager (a non-practicing lawyer) and the COO always went to get tested at the same time too.

        Reply ↓
      2. ecnaseener*

        I’m sure that’s true, and I’d argue it’s a good thing. If you’re going to have a policy that can get people fired, you’d better have a system in place to make sure it’s applied equitably and not just applied to whoever seems suspicious, because the latter is an easy way for illegal discrimination to creep in.

        Reply ↓
      3. Strive to Excel*

        I ran into a court case somewhere – I think on Reddit – where a minority employee successfully argued that they’d been fired for being a minority employee. The employer said that they’d been fired because of drug use. The employee responded that yes, they’d tested positive, but the employer had only tested them and not the half-dozen white employees who’d been busted smoking weed with them.

        Reply ↓
  24. WFHcube*

    LW3 – a relative told their new job upfront that they would test positive for THC. New job basically said ok, thanks for letting us know. Relative still did the test and was hired.(not a federal position)

    Reply ↓
  25. Lizard Lady*

    Like Not Not Telling OP1 to TP Boss’s House above, I’m suspicious you inadvertently threatened someone else by expressing interest in that job. It sounds to me like he has some sort of undeclared horse in that race. A pet candidate he’s trying to get the job? He wants the job? He wants to look good because his own job is at risk, or if he has to re-apply, he wants a certain job and is (inappropriately) worried about how the interviews will reflect on him? Whatever the case, I think he wants things to go a certain way, and you were a surprise, perceived threat to that vision. By trying to publicly humiliate you (please backfire on him!), he is hoping to deter anyone else from messing with whatever he is trying to finagle.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      Yep OP has learned that this boss is trying to finangle things a certain way with the merger. I hope OP didn’t hurt their chances of getting the other job if they still want it. It sucks that the boss didn’t provide any helpful guidance *before* this – sounds like they only have themselves to blame, which fits with their being a jackwagon in the aftermath.

      Reply ↓
    2. Seeking Second Childhood*

      I find myself thinking more about the boss saying OP hadn’t done the higher level skill *here*. He may have been caught out & chastised for not knowing about additional skills his staff possess. He reacted badly no matter the reason but I wonder.

      Reply ↓
    3. Ellis Bell*

      There is something hinky going on here. He had already scotched OP’s chances, so why try to tear her confidence down publicly as well? And asking people to run all their applications by him, is sheer madness and none of his beeswax. Someone upthread theorised sexism, and you’d need more evidence to go on to conclude it’s that.. but it is something.

      Reply ↓
  26. Jay*

    LW #3, I take a medication for my high blood pressure that I have been informed can cause false positives in some drug tests. As such I have been advised to let testers know that “I have a prescription for a medication that can occasionally cause positive results on these sorts of tests. I can provide documentation from my physician as needed and upon request.” Or wording to that degree. It’s usually enough.
    That said, is your company affiliated with a religious or political organization of some sort? Or does it have a large number of members of senior management that skew towards one particular religion? Because I’ve worked at a couple of places (and know people who have worked at a lot more) that were religiously (and occasionally politically) affiliated who used tests of this sort, along with insisting on large amounts of highly questionable ‘monitoring’ software, to enforce their ‘morals’ on their workforce. If that’s the case, they might indeed refuse to hire you based on a nightly glass of wine! We all know at least one or two religious groups who would, and if, purely by ‘coincidence’, the entirety of senior management at this company are elders in one of those groups, you can expect it to be run as if it were a branch of that organization.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      Also if the OP’s prescribed medication is weed, your language may not help as it’s still illegal at the federal level, if that’s the standard this company cares about.

      Reply ↓
    2. metadata minion*

      Given that LW3 is applying for a job that mostly does manufacturing, I don’t think it’s necessary to wonder about religious affiliation. If you’re working with heavy machinery, making sure your employees come to work sober is potentially a life-and-death safety issue. It’s not nearly as important for the office staff, but I don’t think it’s particularly suspicious that they apply the drug testing rules across the board.

      Reply ↓
  27. for the HR readers*

    There are some newer tests for THC that only detect recent (past 10 hours) use. They’re not widespread yet, but are a much better solution for employers like manufacturers who are just trying to detect active impairment for safety purposes. The one I am thinking of is by a company named Ricover, the product is called Xaliva THC

    Reply ↓
  28. Hiring Mgr*

    I think when I got accepted to college, the school sent me a T-shirt and a mug – boy did I pick the wrong era to be born. No wonder tuition is so expensive these days.

    Reply ↓
    1. ecnaseener*

      Well, but were you being recruited for sports? It’s still only the athletes who get wooed like this!

      Reply ↓
      1. Hiring Mgr*

        Now that I think about it, the items might have been given out at freshman orientation, so your point is well taken. Sadly it’s been so many years I’ve forgotten some of the details

        Reply ↓
    4. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      There’s a whole episode of SVU (15×16 I think) with “don’t tempt high school football players to your college with sex” as its basis. It was written and filmed twelve years ago.

      Meanwhile my UK alma mater is falling foul of a new “your elite sports teams should only contain genuine students and not professional athletes” agreement.

      Reply ↓
      1. juliebulie*

        An athlete friend was courted by colleges with promises of prostitutes and cars. That was the early 80s. (And it wasn’t even football!) It’s been around for a while.

        Reply ↓
  29. RussianInTexas*

    Drug testing: my partner works for a giant multinational company that is not American. They are not unionized in the United States. All the US personnel, regardless of the location and job duties, be that a driver, oil rig worker, accountant, programmer, whatever, are drug tested pre-employment, subjects to random drug and imparememt testing, and are following federal guidelines on the drugs that might be legal on state level.
    Now, the random drug and imparememt testing almost never happens IRL, but you agree to them at employment.
    They are a bit extra on safety overall, they even require for people to back into the parking spaces in the company owned lots. They have an entire portal for the various and copious safety assessments.

    Reply ↓
    1. RussianInTexas*

      My favorite is the fire drill during the original WFH in 2020. They required all employees and other occupiers to leave their current location, move the required distance from the structure, take a photo, and upload to the portal as proof.

      Reply ↓
      2. I don't work in this van*

        I had to watch a video about how to do fire and tornado drills at a building I never once stepped foot in.

        Reply ↓
    2. Daughter of Ada and Grace*

      Following federal drug-testing guidelines also means a company can have a single standard for everyone, rather than having to keep up with state-by-state regulations.

      Reply ↓
    3. bamcheeks*

      they even require for people to back into the parking spaces in the company owned lots

      I read this as “company owned loos”, and pictured everyone walking backwards into the toilet cubicles. That definitely meets my definition of “a bit extra”.

      Reply ↓
    4. WithAnAxe*

      I would not be able to work at this company under these rules… but only because of the back-in parking requirement. Never have been able to do that.

      Reply ↓
  30. Potato pusher*

    Came to add that if your organization receives federal funding, they are bound to follow federal laws on marijuana regardless of state laws or prescription. As someone working in community health, I was drug tested at hire (and continue to be randomly). Employees of my organization are not allowed to use marijuana or our funding will be removed.

    Reply ↓
  31. Parenthesis Guy*

    #1: The first thing to remember is that you believe that you need to move to a new org to get ahead. Thing is, in four months, you’ll be part of a new org. Your current boss, hopefully, won’t be your new boss. If you find something else, well and good, but I don’t think you should be thinking you’re stuck because things are going to be changing.

    Your first step is to have a talk with your current boss. He may have wrecked your chances for the stretch job, so you need to know if he’s going to wreck your chances for the non-stretch job. If he is, then you know you need to go elsewhere. The challenge is that he might tell you that he’ll support you for the non-stretch job while secretly sabotaging you. But someone pulling the kind of stunt he did isn’t likely to do that.

    The other thing to do is have a talk with your current boss about why he sabotaged you. It might help to know if it’s because he doesn’t think you can handle that level of responsibility, if it’s because you don’t have experience in that area, or if he has an issue with your current performance. This is less important, however, given that your boss is a jackwagon. Could just be he’s a jackwagon.

    Reply ↓
    1. Iusemymiddlename*

      I read the letter to say that LW#1 will be unemployed in four months – that their jobs will not exist in the new org.

      Reply ↓
      1. Parenthesis Guy*

        I’m presuming that they get one of the jobs they applied to at the new org. If they don’t, then that recommendation is moot.

        Reply ↓
    2. Ellis Bell*

      I really wouldn’t trust him as a referee no matter what he said from this point onwards. Completely unacceptable behaviour.

      Reply ↓
  32. cathy*

    Pre-employment drug screening is a total scam- the drug testing companies push it because they’re making bank (I used to work for one) and “drug free workspace” sounds like who could object?
    And anyone with any federal money (or who wants federal money) HAS to test or they won’t get funded.
    But the only drug they really catch reliably is THC- most other drugs wash out of your system in a day or 2 so you’d have to be pretty addicted to fail one (and you probably wouldn’t make it past the interview.)

    Reply ↓
    1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      Presumably “we drug test everyone” also gets a bunch of candidates not to bother applying, too. I wonder if those candidates are evenly distributed for protected characteristics (eg does it disproportionately discourage disabled candidates).

      Reply ↓
    2. AnonToday*

      Also, in my experience, THC hangs around for a loooong time. Possibly more than just weeks. I do less than a gram of weed per day and flunked a test (for medical purposes, not a big deal) after a two-month period during which my ONLY weed was ONE hit off a vape during a bitchly migraine.

      Reply ↓
    3. Carrie as in Caraway*

      It’s not true that any organization receiving federal funds must drug test their employees. I work at a college that receives federal funding, including grants (for now…), and we are required to certify that we’re a drug free workplace but we don’t do preemptive testing. We do test if impairment is suspected, but only then.

      Reply ↓
    4. Zach*

      That info about federal money is a bit off. It’s businesses that CONTRACT with the federal government that have mandatory testing. Contracting with and simply receiving federal money are two different things.

      Reply ↓
  33. CatDude*

    LW2 – I can’t imagine even the most uptight office having an issue with someone simply saying “he bribed recruits by hiring sex workers”. It’s not like it’s going into any kind of explicit detail, just acknowledging what happened.

    If anything, LW’s wording of “certain impermissible benefits” makes it sound like they are downplaying the seriousness of these actions.

    Reply ↓
    1. Emily Byrd Starr*

      Re: your last sentence
      You clearly have never worked for my old boss. He was a Baptist minister who became visibly uncomfortable with any talk of sex or adult activities.

      Reply ↓
  34. Dinwar*

    For drug tests, it may not be their choice. I’ve worked on a number of projects for federal and private entities and part of the contract between my company and theirs was that we’d all be drug tested. Everyone from day laborers to construction managers to administrative assistants. If you refused you weren’t allowed to work there.

    Given that on one of those I later learned that the construction management team bought their pot from the same dealer as the laborers, I don’t think that they were overly concerned about some recreational use. Heavy drug use is different, and obviously impairment during work hours is something else as well.

    Reply ↓
    1. RussianInTexas*

      I work with many federal and state agencies contracts. Pretty much every one of them stipulates that anyone from them company coming to the agency territory, even a warehouse, has to be drug tested. My company does not come directly in contact with the agencies employees so we don’t have to drug test.
      At my previous job, we had a federal contract with BSEE, and not only I had to do the drug test for the $12/hour job that had nothing to do with that contract, I had to do the FBI background check.

      Reply ↓
  35. Do You Hear The People Sing?*

    LW #4, I asked that at a job interview last month. The interviewer was not in the least offended. They told me they were dependent on federal grants, but that they’d been assured by people high up in the relevant government department that those grants are not at risk.

    I got the job, so no hitch there. The grants were abolished this week.

    Such are the bewildering times we’re living in, but the question will not offend.

    Reply ↓
    1. ashie*

      Nonprofits are very, very used to talking about where their funding comes from. It’s a legitimate question and not remotely offensive.

      Reply ↓
  36. Allornone*

    OP4: I work in the non-profit sector (grant writing) and was interviewing just as the chaos was starting to hit the fan (Trump hadn’t DOGEd everything to crap and back yet, but it was obvious something bad was on the horizon). I absolutely asked how they thought the current administration might affect them. It wasn’t my first question (some of Alison’s recommended questions about success in the role and the culture of the organization were), but it needed to be addressed and I actually think they liked that I did. Showing you are aware of significant changes in your industry shouldn’t hurt! I got a role in a fantastic organization that does great work and isn’t likely to lose whatever government funding they receive (I am taking out DEI language in my grants, which seems wrong and bad and I hate it, but fuck it). What also impressed me with the organization is that their funding is diversified enough that if we don’t get the money we’re used to, we can probably get it elsewhere. Depending on the type of non-profit you work for, diversified funding sources can be a real plus.

    Reply ↓
    1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

      Yes, for sure! Ideally, funding is not only diversified through different kinds of grants (government, corporate, private foundation, etc.), the org is also supported by individual funders, planned giving, sponsorships, maybe events (although that’s a mixed blessing given how pricey they can be), a retail arm or other revenue generator, in-kind donations, etc.

      For OP #4: Even outside the federal funding question, it’s great to get an idea of this when you’re interviewing — look at all their funding and get an idea of how many sources and types of sources they have, and then ask a follow-up question about that in the interview. (This may be easier to discern in an annual report or website than a 990).

      Reply ↓
  37. Gal Friday*

    For #4, in the US you can see charity Form 990 filings online through many charity watchdog sites to see the breakdown of their funding. Most charities also publish an annual report that covers the previous fiscal year operating expenses and revenue sources. If this nonprofit is doing any fundraising at all, this type of information likely on their website since many donors want to know this before giving.

    Reply ↓
  38. Zee*

    #4 – I work in the non-profit sector, have been actively interviewing, and have asked most places how they’ve been affected by the federal cuts. Not a single one has reacted poorly or even batted an eye. Some places actually offered up that info without me asking. Don’t worry about it.

    Reply ↓
  39. SaraC13*

    OP #3, I live in NH, where every state around us has legalized recreational marijuana, just not in the “Live free or die” state lol!Many manufacturers in our state are testing for drugs other than marijuana, for the reasons Alison mentioned about the testing being inequitable and the general difficulties in staffing in manufacturing. Also, if you are prescribed a medication that can produce positive results on a pre-employment test, the instructions should include providing a copy of the prescription at the testing site. Good luck!

    Reply ↓
  40. Workerbee*

    OP #1, If there is a way you can re-check-in with your interviewers at new org, do so!

    I don’t know what power trip your boss is on, considering all of you have effectively lost your jobs – does he have a history of punching down? – but I wouldn’t put it past him to have also told new org that you weren’t a good fit.

    Good luck to you & I hope you get a job that leaves that insecure bloviator in the dust.

    Reply ↓
    1. AnonToday*

      Yes, he shouldn’t be interfering with your career. Just check in with the new org to let them know you’re still interested.

      Reply ↓
  41. ChiliDog*

    OP3, does the manufacturing company handle any sort of regulated substances or have federal/state contracts? At my employer, we handle DEA-regulated substances, so everyone who has access to the building gets tested. Since it’s the feds, they don’t care that marijuana is legalized in our state.

    Reply ↓
  42. Mumwa*

    LW4, this is a totally legit question to ask!

    I started a job in municipal government late last year as a grant manager. I have a cousin on one of the side of my family who manages grants for a school district. On the other side of my family, I have three cousins (in emergency management, library sciences, and agriculture/youth education, respectively) whose jobs are partially or fully grant-funded. I don’t think many people are aware in this country of how many jobs and how much work across the economy federal grant funding supports.

    I’m glad you’re thinking to ask how this role you’re interviewing for might be affected by Trump’s slash-and-burn tactics. I hope the answer you get back is that it won’t be.

    Reply ↓
  43. HR Exec Popping In*

    LW1 – yes, your boss is an utter ass. And you should look external. Until then, try to remember that your boss is also likely not their best self right now. They are dealing with the same uncertainty as you are. They are likely nervous and trying to look good to the new company. That doesn’t mean you should forgive or forget. But it might help you understand – especially if this was out character.

    Reply ↓
  44. Landry*

    If I were the hiring manager, I’d be very tempted to rescind an offer for anyone who questioned the need for a drug test. No one asks unless they think there’s a chance they won’t pass. I’ve worked with way too many people who try to function under the influence of various substances, from prescriptions to CBD gummies to alcohol, and none of them could do even a tenth of the job. Not to mention being a massive safety and liability risk.

    Reply ↓
    1. Seashell*

      I am not a drug person and a fairly light drinker, but coming up positive on a drug test doesn’t mean you’re working under the influence. It’s weird to think you’re incapable of sitting at a desk answering the phone because you smoked pot a week ago.

      Also, people can be legitimately concerned about not wanting to reveal a medical condition that involves prescription medication use that would show up on those tests. I have a family member with a diagnosed anxiety disorder who uses Xanax as needed for claustrophobia. Revealing a disability might cause a hiring manager to rescind an offer too, even that behavior is illegal.

      Reply ↓
    2. Thin Mints didn't make me thin*

      I have not found CBD gummies to be impairing, although I stick to lower doses and do not indulge during work hours.

      Reply ↓
    3. Flash*

      I don’t smoke or drink or do any other kind of substance, but I’ve been burned before when self-reporting the entirely legal prescribed medications I take. A manager told me outright that she thought I wouldn’t be a good fit because of the condition she assumed I had.

      Reply ↓
  45. Ginger Cat Lady*

    OP1 I wonder if boss applied for that job himself and is trying to get you to doubt yourself so you’ll withdraw or do poorly in any further rounds of interviews?

    Reply ↓
    1. HR Exec Popping In*

      I had this thought as well. That or the boss is trying to protect his own image and was upset you didn’t tell him and that he learned it from the new company whom he is trying to impress.

      Reply ↓
  46. HannahS*

    OP1, I wonder if you were taught that not talking about sex at work is an important rule of professionalism. While that’s broadly true, what that usually means is that it’s unprofessional to share details about one’s own sex life. So if you were hiring sex worker, or if your colleague was hiring a sex worker, it would be inappropriate to talk about it at work. But generally, if something is in the news and you mention it in a non-sensational manner, it’s fine, even if it has to do with sex.

    Reply ↓
  47. Thin Mints didn't make me thin*

    FWIW, when informed that I would have to be drug-tested for my current job, I mentioned to the HR manager that I occasionally use THC, which is legal in my state, and asked if this would be a problem. He assured me it would not, and I got hired and am very happy.

    Reply ↓
    1. HR Exec Popping In*

      Many companies no longer test for THC with their standard drug test because it is legal in many states.

      Reply ↓
  48. JJJJShabado*

    If you Google “Pitino sex scandal”, I would think you would get mostly information about the time he had sex in an Italian Restaurant for 15 seconds. (And that is what I thought the question was going to be about). That I would think you would not want to discuss in a work setting.

    I agree with Alison about discussing the recruitment scandal.

    Reply ↓
  49. ICodeForFood*

    OP#1 – I am SO sorry your boss is such a jerk, and that he had to prove it by trying to embarrass you! Just remember: HE’s the one who’s a jerk, and the fact that some of your coworkers have told you privately that his comments were inappropriate indicates that they know he is, too.

    Since the new company interviewed you for the role, they thought that you have the potential to be a “llama whisperer.” You DO have that potential!

    Good luck finding a role elsewhere, with managers who don’t feel obligated to swat down anyone who dares to think they might be able to do more than their current job!

    Reply ↓
  50. Observer*

    #1 – Idiot boss

    What he did is evidence of his lack of character/leadership/judgment, nothing else.

    I am going to disagree with the “nothing else” piece. I would be willing to bet that he is *also* a bigot. Because the way he seems to have framed it has a strong whiff of “some people just don’t know their place” and “some people are just too ambitious SMH”. And we know how closely that aligns with bigotry.

    Also why would be “not want” people to think that they might be able to step up their game and take on new jobs? Why would that be a bad thing? Maybe he doesn’t think it’s a bad thing *in general* but for “some” people.

    I could be projecting, but the behavior is just soooo gross that this is where my mind went.

    Reply ↓
  51. Anon, MD*

    I think that Allison got it wrong when she says that alcohol testing is for current impairment only. There are a number of tests available, other than direct blood alcohol level (BAL), that can test for recent alcohol consumptions, as well as past heavy use. One of these was mentioned in previous comments, a test for phosphatidylethanol (PEth). Others are tests for ethyl glucoronide (ETG) and carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT).

    Of these tests, ETG tests for a metabolite of ethanol metabolism, and will be indicative of recent use even when the BAL is zero. ETG remains detectable in blood for up to 80 hours after alcohol consumption. Not really a test that I would think is useful for employment testing as it simply indicates recent use.

    More useful for employment testing are the tests for PEth and CDT. These tests are indicative heavy alcohol use, and in the case of CDT chronic use as well. PEth can remain detectable in blood for up to four weeks if a person is a regular heavy drinkier. As a single blood test for employment purposes, this test has limitations as one night of heavy “binge” drinking will give positive results for up to 12 days. An employer wouldn’t know if an prospective employee has an alcohol problem, or went to a party last weekend.

    In my opinion, the most helpful test for an employer would be the CDT. This test measures the amount of carbohydrate attached to transferrin, a chemical involved with iron metabolism. Alcohol disrupts carbohydrates attaching to transferrin, and the more one drinks the higher the percentage of CDT. Alcohol use of >60g (4.3 servings) of alcohol daily for at least two weeks is required for this test to be abnormal.

    While a person who has a positive CDT test may come to work sober, they’re not someone who could be called in to help in an off-hours emergency. They may also be more likely to have job performance issues; there’s really no such thing as a “high-functioning” alcoholic. And a caveat, a positive CDT does not mean alcoholism, just excessive use that may indicate a problem with alcohol. But would you want to hire someone you know is drinking more than 4 drinks a night on a regular basis? That probably depends on the industry and job position. In health care, we might hire that person as a custodian or admin assistant, but we’d sure think long and hard about hiring a physician with a positive CDT.

    Reply ↓
  52. Observer*

    #2 – Referring to a recruitment scandal appropriately.

    I agree with Alison that you were being unnecessarily coy. But also, you were really underplaying the issue.

    There is a huuuuge, humongous difference between “impermissible” benefits like NIL (which should never have been banned), and prostitutes. The latter is not just breaking inappropriate rules. It’s not even breaking rules that make sense. It goes into wildly unethical and destructive to the players territory. The only thing I can think of that would be equally bad would be drugs of any sort.

    Reply ↓
  53. IMLS Federal Grants look like state grants*

    So, librarian here. You can ask about federal grants, but you might not be asking the right question. Maybe they’re only applying for state grants, but those grants come from federal funds (like IMLS funding that goes down to local libraries but is administered by the state library so the person you ask might not even think about the federal funding behind it). Or maybe it’s a private Weyerhaeuser grant, but suddenly the opening up of new federal lands will vastly shift where they give there money (they like to give local to where they have operations, and might try to shift funds to new locations). Or it’s a grant that depends on a Canadian partnership that will fail due to tarriffs. The basic “do you depend on federal funding” question is fine, but if it really matters, you might want to ask deeper.

    Reply ↓
  54. 14Weeks*

    LW3. I had a job offer rescinded when I tested positive for marijuana. It was for a desk job. Although medical marijuana is legal in my state and recreational marijuana is legal in the state the company was based in, they said because they had federal contracts, I was not eligible for higher. I was a regular user at the time and I’m overweight (which matters with marijuana as the THC sticks to fat cells). I took home testing kits once a week to see how long it would take for me to pass and it was 14 weeks. The old 30 day rule is kind of outdated because of the potency of marijuana today.
    I wish you much luck and hope you have different results!

    Reply ↓
  55. Anon (and on and on)*

    LW3, they almost certainly are concerned about employees coming to work intoxicated and then working with the manufacturing equipment. There’s a long history of drug testing for facilities like this, and it’s definitely overkill for the reasons that Allison mentioned. They probably consider it fairer to test everyone rather than single out specific roles.

    I was the HR person for a small hospital and was drug tested at hire for similar reasons. I was also included in the pool of employees who were subject to random drug testing despite being the person who managed the process. I always wondered what would happen if my own name came up since no one else was assigned to make sure that I actually went! Of course, no one was around to get back my signing bonus for leaving too soon for the same reason….

    Reply ↓
  56. Rajacat*

    Rather than, “Do you rely on federal grants at all, and do you expect your budget, or this position itself, to be affected by what’s going on?” I’d shift it to “What fed funding streams do you rely on and what impacts are you preparing for?”

    Binary questions will not give you the depth of texture needed.

    Assume yes, because yes is likely. Even if it’s not for the position you’re interviewing for, you’ll want to know how they’re prepared and are in crash position.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS