My information comes from someone who accepted a job offer there -- and was sent to a lab to take such a test -- and from conversations with employees at that office approximately 2 years ago. (Who both basically said, "Yeah, I don't like it, but what are you going to do?")
There were also, at the time, easily findable statements from one of your founders (not on your websites; it was in an interview done somewhere) in which they touted the benefits of drug screening, as it it were a key ingredient to their success (like pair programming, and making everyone work the exactly the same hours).
Perhaps the policy has since been phased out, and/or it was only applied to certain groups (or applied inconsistently during latter stages). If it hasn't come up in conversation during your time there, that may be because... it's not something people like to talk about. But by all indications it was definitely a thing at Pivotal, at one point.
I have been here literally that entire period. Nobody has ever mentioned drug testing taking place at any point.
I interviewed in NYC on October 15th, 2013, nobody mentioned urine testing.
I started working in NYC on February 10th, 2014, nobody mentioned urine testing.
I actually work in this office. You don't. Your "someone" doesn't. Your "easily findable statement" doesn't seem so easily findable. All I can find are your remarks, and one other person on HN with an eerily similar writing style.
From everything I can tell, you're just wrong and I'd appreciate it if you stopped repeating a false claim.
I don't dispute your own observations; like I said, it's perfectly possible that the policy was being inconsistently applied. For example, if they were hired to work in a different group from yours. And as said, it's not all unsurprising that you wouldn't necessarily know about it. These things happen all the time in large companies, with distributed teams all over the world.
That said, it's rather uncivil of you accuse someone of lying -- and right now, you are unambiguously accusing me of lying about the experience of someone I've known for 20+ years -- just because they have a data point that you don't.
Even if that data point makes you a tad uncomfortable.
It's also uncivil to accuse my employers, repeatedly, of a policy that you have no hard evidence of or personal experience with, except one person's hearsay. I understand it's your friend. I am still disagreeing with him or her.
For those reading along: you will not be asked by Pivotal to submit to such a test, either when applying or upon being hired.
If this turns out be false, I will personally pay $2,000 to the ACLU or another charity of your choice.
Actually they do have hard evidence of their trip to the drug lab (in the form of emails; voicemails possibly also; and very likely paper receipts from the lab itself, if they haven't been thrown out).
More importantly, though -- you're doing better now, but your closing remarks are still backhanded and wishy-washy. Can't you just say:
"I'm sorry to hear about your friend's experience; all I can say is that nothing like that has ever happened to me, or anyone at Pivotal I know, and I'd be very surprised if such a policy, if ever widely applied at Pivotal, were still in force anywhere in the company."
That's not a reasonable thing to ask him to say in this situation. I don't know if you realize this, but you're just some random dude making a claim with nothing at all to back it up besides that you said it. You said there was info online, but haven't provided it. You said your acquaintance has hard evidence, but realistically we're all going to forget about this conversation before you ever actually provide it.
Sorry dude, this is not a claim you're going to have taken seriously with the level of info you've provided.
Nobody has ever asked me.
Nobody has ever spoken about taking a test.
Nobody has announced any such policy, or even hinted at it.
Nobody has ever told me they were asked, including the candidates I have interviewed.
Your remarks are worse than hearsay.