Slog

News & Arts

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Media The P-I Pee Test

Posted by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:06 PM

In a move that will likely put a number of local pot dealers out of business, Hearst has apparently ordered the few remaining P-I reporters to undergo drug testing.

Staff members at the P-I have apparently all been required to take—and pass—a pee test in order to keep their jobs, and they could be subject to random testing in the future.

According to an e-mail from Hearst spokesman Paul Luthringer:

Drug testing is not a new policy within Hearst Newspapers and is among the best practice policies for many industries across the country for many reasons.

Drug testing may not be a new thing for Hearst, but it’s definitely something that’s new to the P-I. The P-I’s former sports staff were clearly a bunch of potheads and former P-I reporter Mike Lewis also made reference to the P-I’s pothead staff in his recent piece about the paper’s glory days:

They drank and detonated, married and remarried, and remarried. They smoked pot on the roof, ushered women into the newsroom and, much later, cigarettes and booze out.

Hearst's new drug test policy is likely a cost-saving measure as some insurance companies give breaks to companies who test their employees. Still, while Hearst may be looking to save cash everywhere it can, asking journalists to not use drugs is like asking a priest to keep his hands off little boys.

FacebookShare

Comments (31) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

A poor analogy. It's more like asking a priest to keep his hands off the communion wine.

You see, unlike this, asking priests to refrain from pedorasty would be reasonable.

Posted by William Randolph Liverwurst on March 24, 2009 at 4:28 PM

"asking journalists to not use drugs is like asking a priest to keep his hands off little boys"

Go back to posting photos of boobies, Jonah. That spoke highly (pun accidental) for you, compared to this piece.

Posted by Lenny on March 24, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Isn't the real news to report about the PI this?: http://publicola.net/?p=3865

Posted by Trevor on March 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Drug testing is not only a waste of time, they would do better to actually report on how many elected officials have serious drinking problems.

Anecdotally, it's really really high.

Alcohol or grass or whatever, it's still a drug.

Posted by Will in Seattle on March 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Tom Robbins and Rick Anderson blazed up on the PI roof back in the day.

Posted by seandr on March 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM

so if the stranger starts drug testing... wouldn't it be to insure your writers and staff ARE using drugs... i like it!

Posted by too bad for the PI staff on March 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Emmett Watson used to drink so many Martini's he put himself into a head hanging stupor every day.Then he sobered up and never wrote anything new again.Just rehashed old stories he couldn't remember writing the first time. My mom smoked pot with him a few times too.Sorry Emmett.RIP

Posted by nu him when on March 24, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Considering William Randolph Hearst's hit campaign on cannabis in the 30's that ultimately led to the current ban, is this really a surprise?

Posted by some things never change on March 24, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Had a job for a long time where I worked 21 days on,21 days off.24/7 when on.My supervisor was a pot head too and the company drug tested.My super would only enforce random tests on the last day or two we were on the job.Saved a lot of our jobs,including his own.I got tested 5 or 6 times in 7 years and beat them all.Smoked pot when I was off.Quit that job a few years ago and am now retired.Still smoke occasionally and have since 1965.Or was it 1964 or was it 1966?Ha ha ha.What memory? God!I'm hungry...Can't find my keys...hahaha

Posted by Sailor on March 24, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Dear PI,
As you attorney I advise you to find a bag of clean urine and increase your drug intake several fold, stat. This is your only hope for survival, and to not do so would be, frankly, irresponsible.

Posted by matt! on March 24, 2009 at 5:31 PM

So, Hearst decides to enforce their drug-testing policy a week after PI reporters brag publicly about smoking pot at work? Color me not surprised.

Posted by Mahtli69 on March 24, 2009 at 5:35 PM

@4 - Grass?

Posted by Damn, you're old! on March 24, 2009 at 5:37 PM

does anyone really want to work for a company that has such terrible management they can't tell if their employees are on drugs without testing them?

Posted by not a troll on March 24, 2009 at 5:40 PM

So, as a concession are they still allowed to get brain-stupefyingly drunk at work?

Posted by COMTE on March 24, 2009 at 5:50 PM

@12:

That's nothing. I was talking to an old acquaintance a couple of days ago, and she mentioned something about "lids" - that's a term I don't think I've heard come up in conversation in at least 25 years.

Posted by COMTE on March 24, 2009 at 5:52 PM

@3 - hey Mr. "Real News," they have "beats" on SLOG. Jonah is covering his beat that overlaps with Dom's in this instance - drugs/crime. The coverage of the PI's demise is ECB's and Eli's. Why complain about Jonah writing about the drug testing? I do agree with the rest of you - the analogy was a bad one...

Posted by I*think*it's*news on March 24, 2009 at 6:19 PM

If online journalists weren't allowed to work if they couldn't pass a pee test then there wouldn't be any online journalists. Trust me on this one, friends.

Posted by Matt Fuckin' Hickey on March 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM

@16 - you're totally right. It's a decent piece and deserves credit for that. It's just that closing line that made me cringe - like finding a piece of crap at the bottom of the plate of an otherwise good meal.

Oh yeah, and I just like it when Jonah posts pictures of boobies.

Posted by Lenny on March 24, 2009 at 6:37 PM

Why is The Stranger suddenly making a big deal out of this? The drug tests were mentioned in a P-I column last Friday.

Posted by hearstscribe on March 24, 2009 at 7:00 PM

So if (hypothetically) insurance companies wants the PI to drug test their employees, but PI management knows they've got some good reporters who are total potheads, seems there would be a market for a drug testing service that, you know, doesn't really work very well.

Posted by shabadoo on March 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM

I'll work for them.

I have no quarrel with weed or its smokers, and fully support legalization. It just doesn't agree with me, and I haven't touched it in the past five years.

Do I have the job?

Posted by Lee on March 24, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Jonah, you're not really calling yourself a journalist, are you? Eli is the only journalist at the Stranger.

Posted by Your Name Here on March 24, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Oh Dan! Ohhhhhh Dan! I am so excited about your mayoral campaign. I've been combing the Slog archives for your best writings. I want the citizens of Seattle to know the real Dan Savage. Compassionate, thoughtful, empathetic, generous, OH Dan!!! I can hardly wait for the campaign to begin. I'll be there for you Dan. I'll be there for you every day promoting your past musings on matters large and small to the citizens of Seattle.

Must I report my expenditures to your campaign if we don't collude on the message?

Posted by Bobbie on March 24, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Hey guess what?

Frank Blethen doesn't make his employees pee in a cup.

Posted by FYI on March 24, 2009 at 10:17 PM

The real question to ask is, did the staff know about this before they waived their rights to severance pay?

That's a nice way to shaft somebody. First, get them to sign away their severance package to work on the new on-line edition. Then, after they sign, tell them to pee in a cup and fire them.

Posted by eclexia on March 24, 2009 at 11:24 PM

FYI@24: Wrong. I know several Seattle Times employees who were drug-tested as a condition of employment.

Posted by DOUG. on March 25, 2009 at 9:33 AM

#26,

Newsroom employees?

No.

Posted by Nope on March 25, 2009 at 9:48 AM

I am totally okay with drug-testing certain kinds of workers: heavy machine loaders, truck drivers, pilots, firefighters. When peak performance is a life or death issue, drug use is unacceptable.

Now, everybody else who is not a firefighter, pilot, etc.? I don't care what you do in your down time and neither should anyone else. Just get your job done well and don't do something that'll make you a danger to yourself or others. And stay the hell away from meth.

Posted by Greg on March 25, 2009 at 10:14 AM

@27 Yep. Pre-employment drug tests for everyone from the mailroom to the newsroom. The only tests after that were if there was a work related injury.
PS. If you can't beat a drug test that you know is coming, you are a retard.

Posted by Bohica on March 25, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Woodface... here goes everything...

sing it like this " ok..."

let's keep it up in the new old jargon...

whisper tweet little somethings in our beer and ram it through the front of "The Globe, The Economist, The Daily Mirror " and of course Joan of Arcs Rembrandt relatives....

everywhere on the planet there should be feasting and loving and sporting and

no- whimpers about BONO and U-2 working for the rest of their lives to support my Marijuana habit...

which at the moment is being hi-jacked by the Hearst Corporation because they don't want to undue 100 or so years of Land Management Regulations and banking connections to wealthy trusts who would rather tear down trees and build more parks out of poison land shields than rebuild danny-scam forest with very choice sativa and indica.

Oh ya.. did I forget to distinguish between industrial hemp and the failed war on embedded news journalists?

Posted by danielbennettkieneker on March 25, 2009 at 11:06 AM

God I hate this country.

Posted by schmacky on March 25, 2009 at 11:53 AM