Non-negotiable offers: Striking the right balance?

As per my understanding, a non-negotiable offer being made by an employee to an employer would require either the employee to be in a very strong position, as to be able to command what he thinks he deserves. As mentioned in a previous post as well, such an offer would hold merit if the employee possessed a skill-set that the organization felt was irreplaceable. In such a scenario, the employee could be on an upper pedestal and have the capacity to demand. However, my question at this stage would be: can an employee ever actually be in an advantageous situation enough to be able to negotiate.

Even though Darrell Hair wrote a mail, suggesting a one-off non-negotiable offer (which he wanted to keep private), & his decision (of England winning by virtue of forfeiture of play by the Pakistani team) was in accordance with the rules of international cricket; the ICC did consider the contents of his mail inappropriate. The same was also communicated by the ICC chief executive, Malcolm Speed, to Darrell Hair. Speed even stressed that he was satisfied there was no 'malicious, underhand or dishonest intent' in the offer and that in his belief, Hair was under 'great stress when he wrote the letter'.

(Content ref: http://www.cr17.com/index.php?topic=699.45;wap2 )

Perhaps one mayn’t be faced with situations of such magnanimity & media exposure in the real world, but as an employee, and citing a personal example here, a person can bargain with his employer (organization) on the basis of a better offer that he may have in hand. One of my colleagues had done the same, in return for a better pay package. Owing to the fact that he was amongst one of the top performers in the business unit, the top management chose to retain him by offering him a salary hike. Of course, he was directed not to divulge the salary details to anyone.

However, the situation also has a flip side to it, because of the fact that nothing remains a secret for too long. When other employees, who had joined at the same time as him, became aware of the new settlement that was made for him, it did cause some friction amongst them. This eventually did lead to a negative sentiment amongst the employees, thus creating a situation for the HR department.

Having said that, as to where the employee-organizational relationship is concerned, in the case I shared, the non-negotiable offer made by the employee did work out in favor of the employee. Also, the organization too did not lose a star achiever, and in consequence, didn’t lose valuable business. Still, the question remains in my mind, who really benefits out of such a bargain? Or would you say that both the employee and the employer form a mutually beneficial compromise on the offer, by striking the right balance?