The local group won out, and the parent corp abandoned the policy of testing their California employees.
Whether or not the reasons I was given were bogus or not, I would be in no way surprised if my scenario happened at other companies as well.
It seems you were mislead, according to https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/Card_Prod_Sec...:
Q 1 December 2013 – Drug testing is not required in the PCI Card Production Security Requirements. Is this an oversight?
A No, PCI does not require drug testing due to the wide variances in country laws governing where or when drug testing is allowed. However, that does not preclude card vendors from requiring drug testing wherever and whenever they deem necessary.
I wasn't able to find anything relating to HIPAA, but I've worked around HIPAA since before it was passed and your post is literally the first time I've ever heard that claim. Not saying you're wrong, just that this is a new one to me.
I believe you get some kind of tax break by drug testing.
Urine tests are usually easy to pass, as it's likely an invasion of your privacy as a non-felon to watch you urinate, therefore, it is a trivial matter to have synthetic urine (bottle warmed in your inner-thigh/groin to body temperature) ready to squirt into the cup, as well as into the toilet. If I recall, it was about $25 to purchase a bottle.
Hair tests required you to purchase $30 bottles of special shampoo that would strip away anything (leaving your hair feeling like straw), provided you follow the directions on the box, which was to scrub like crazy for 15 minutes. You'd get a good 3-4 hours of clean hair to attend the lab, which is more than enough time for most people.
I now work at a (incubating) canadian medical marijuana startup, so I no longer worry about such things, but I'm sure I'll be telling the grandkids about the measures people took during prohibition eventually.
Every employer I have ever had did pre-employment drug screening. A few likely companies have even done pre-interview screening. No one has ever done anything at all drug related after the initial hire date.
It's almost like they're just checking a box on an HR form, and no one actually cares.
What an absolutely laughable policy. You'd have to fire half of bloody London if they tested for charlie.
I'd massively kick off at HR for this if I couldn't hire someone for this reason.
I don't know if this is current.
Very rare even in giant corps from my POV