And the winner is...

Going by definition, bargaining power is the relative abilities of parties in a situation to exert influence over each other. Theoretically, either party can be in the receiving end. However, it is not always true that the individual is at the receiving end and the employer has the bargaining power. It heavily depends on the power and position held by the individual. If the individual possesses qualities or abilities which are indispensable to the organisation, the bargaining power automatically tilts towards the individual. Rather, the organisation or the employer will choose to give a free hand to the individual and let him bargain his way within the organisation, comfortably enough to let the individual think he has won the argument. While this might be true for a person who has options and offers to choose from, majority of the employees face a ‘beggars cannot be choosers’ situation. More often than not, it’s their job which is at stake and the individual finally finds himself at the receiving end.

With respect to the mail by Darrel Hair, it was a situation where the bargaining is between an elite umpire and ICC, a powerful body by itself. Mr. Hair was well aware of his abilities and his previous contributions. His experience and power enabled him to react the way he did, to the controversy he was facing. The terms he had quoted in his one-time non-negotiable offer very clearly showed the authority he commanded. In this case, legality matters. No matter how powerful you are as an individual in an organisation or whatever your ability may be, bargaining power always shifts to the side which is legally strong. If the situation calls for it, I would definitely make a non-negotiable offer to my employer or accept a similar offer from an employee, provided there is no conspiracy involved.