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

This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.

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?”