Hope you guys can make out something out of it.
Hi everyone
As themes like “contracted or Connected?" and "At Will, So Will" through Short Stories, Role Plays and Visual Episodes are being brought before us; normally the human mind (at least mine) sometimes starts interrogating itself the decision that would be capable of taking during such situation. As at any point of time we being both employer and employee the view of the situation at hand becomes that much complex.
Here I recall a definition of Theory of constraints which said “A problem precisely defined until it can be presented as a conflict between two necessary conditions”. In accurate sciences what they do whey they face conflict is to negate one option for the other. But in cases related to employment relations the spotlight is not the word “ALTERNATIVE” but on the word “ACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE”. Each situation needs to be dealt in a certain way and there is no pre determined scale of calculation of it. For the Darrell Hair case I would like to see from my perspective as an employer and an employee.
Few of the perspectives through which i would like to view the case keepingthe frame work of non negotiable offer in mind are:
Characteristics of the parties
Situational factors
Trade of business and specialized skill requirement
Market value and brand image of both parties
Now to be precise enough what I mean by the above factors I would like to take the case highlighted below (that of Darrell Hair and ICC)
Characteristics of the parties: When situations of diverse opinion arises each of the employer and employee seems to know the basic characteristics of each other. The employer is faced with a situation of trying to find a common solution for a common problem engulfing different individuals. If an employer has an image of retrenching people who do not clear hurdles few of the employees won’t even try to make a situation out of it as seen in the HCS case. On the other hand there are individuals like Darrell Hair who do take things in their jurisdiction. The employer should have a clear view of the characteristics of people before acting so that they can predict any action coming their way.
Situational Factors: As already pointed out by SRMitra the situational factors including legal terms and sporting bodies and of course the ever growing media punch. In such high prolific cases it becomes very evident to all present the situation and the result taken out of it. The side media takes also plays a function in such cases. If the non negotiable offer by Darrell Hair is put under post mortem it clear states certain points on the external communication that goes to the outside world to create a fear psychosis riding on the back of media on consequences possible if the offer is not met. The points are reiterated below.
"2 - ICC may announce the retirement in any way they wish, but I would prefer a simple 'lifestyle choice' as this was the very reason I moved from Australia to settle in the UK three years ago.
3 - No public comment to be made by me as to possible reasons for the decision."
The above points clearly reiterates the point that how situational factors and media presence can bring a major influence in determining the decision whether it is to save face or gain justice.
For individuals also this opportunity being limited a presigned contract like I faced also helps the employer. My Employment contract clearly stated that after I resign from my job “you are not allowed to work for any competitors in the automobile and auto parts business for a period of three consecutive years”. For an individual looking out for an employer who does not focus on what is written between the lines and have a good image as an employer is the only solution rather than such hassles.
Trade of business and specialized skill requirement: This for me is one factor which bogs all the factors down as this brings in the talk of “bargaining power” and “receiving end”. ICC being a specialized society and a one off organization in its trade has lot of power in its end but; here the individual too has lot of backing. In manufacturing sectors where retrenching is done taking lot of specialized skills held by the individual in concern as against IT sector where they build the skill and they are confident of building the same skill in any joe or sam. The non negotiable offer takes into account all the lost earnings of Darrell Hair considering his skills and if such costs are too high the employer may look at other alternatives rather than sacking. A small retrenchment package or another outplacement offer for an IT professional when he is asked to leave the job may work wonders for both parties. The skill set that the individual holds gives him an opportunity to calculate his worth and take an aggressive position that Darrell Hair took. Similarly for an organization which can build the same skills in any individual won’t take such factors into consideration.
Market value and brand image of both parties: Last but not the least is the external opportunities and brand image. If Darrell Hair felt he had a better opportunity not being in the elite panel and breaking the contract now would make him have access to other opportunities then he may not have put such a non negotiable offer (as what is happening to all cricketers for 20-20 tournaments). ICC on the other hand knows that its bench strength is high and taking Hair out would improve its brand image that it acted for the game and gave the game its needed priority then so be it.
I would like to wrap my ocean of words with the fact that all one time "Non-Negotiable Offer" are the climax of a movie and suitable discussion and relevant steps taken may not allow an employer or employee to come to such a situation only. Also as one senior plant manager of above 20 years experienced said me “Guys the days of employment policies for years and years are over; now you are all machines which depreciates and only the instrument that will rule you are yearly contracts”. What I see is the dawn of non negotiable offers in a large scale.
