Mandatory Background Checks Negligent Hiring Practices It is not uncommon for most businesses to enforce mandatory background checks upon hiring but how does that affect the individual who has been incarcerated or fired from a previous job? In this summary and critical analysis we will examine Lessing Gold and Chad Terhune differing opinions regarding the negligent hiring practices and lawsuits that stem from background checks. Lessing Gold holds the stance that mandatory background checks should be enforced with every employment, whereas Chad Terhune believes they should not due to inaccuracy of information. Very nice succinct summary in introduction of divergent points. Lessing Gold’s (year) entire argument was based on the idea that past criminal behavior should be accessible to the public due to safety concerns and without the information it puts potential customers and other employees at risk. Gold believes that every organization should require background check on employees whether the company position requires it or not. He gives an account of a customer that was kidnapped at gunpoint by an employee who had, in the past, been convicted of kidnapping. He argues that had the company implemented mandatory background checks and reviewed this information, it could have prevented this criminal from repeating past behaviors (Use book title here as how would one know what Bethel custom text was used. Bethel, 2011, p.376-377). Terhune (year) argues just the opposite. His view is that background screening and companies, such as ChoicePoint, are big business- ones that have thrived due to their exploitation of misused information and consequently due to its $4 billion profits, annually. Terhune suggests that background checks are not as thorough as they claim to be, thus illustrated with Pendergrass and Rite Aid. Pendergrass was accused of stealing from Rite Aid and even though his name was later restored through court proceedings, his entire work history was submitted to a background agency which has since been used, in his opinion, to affect his ability to be hired for a job (book title Bethel, 2011, pp.376-383). (Note: this can also lead to issues of defamation based on libel) He believes that “it’s an unregulated industry with easy money and not a huge emphasis on compliance or on hiring quality people to do the screening” (book titleBethel, 2011, p.280) When it comes to the issue of hiring and using a background check, I have to side with Terhune to some degree. I do believe that employers should have knowledge of criminal behavior, particularly due to safety concerns for customers and other employees. You would not want someone convicted of sexual abuse working with or around children. In addition, I feel that safety for any person is vital. You want your employees to feel safe in their work environment and you also want your customers to have a sense that they can trust you to have their best interest at heart (regardless if you do or not). (Note: the employer has a duty of maintaining a safe work environment known as a general duty clause) However, whereas I agree that employers should have access to basic information such as criminal history, I do not believe that other aspects of a credit report are vital for employment, such as collection history, overdue payments, or other claims that may be present on a background check. Personally, my husband and I experienced this same kind of exploitation through the use of misuse of information. We rented from our landlord for over 3 years and while we were there we caused some property damage (minor damage such as, broken shade, door and an electrical issue). Although we paid our landlord in full upon leaving, they reported to credit agency so our next landlord would be aware of activity. It took us over a year to find a home due to this misuse of information. The claim did not state that we had paid for the damages, in full, or the fact that we have proof of payment; however, it simply states the facts, which happen to hurt us in the long run. This misuse of information and the examples illustrated in the reading accurately portray why I do not believe that companies should have access to any unnecessary information, only information which is vital to the safety of the public, such as criminal history. Consumers should never be subjected to fear due to accidental incidents or grudges that employers can hold. Everyone should have an equal opportunity for employment and the chance to thrive in that employment without the fear of their track record haunting them. University, Bethel . "Appendix A." Human Resource Management. United States: McGraw HIll, 2011. 376-385. Print.