Some employers offer their employees subsidised membership of gyms and sports clubs, believing that this will make the stuff healthier and thus more effective at work. Other employers see no benefit in doing so. Consider the arguments from both aspects of this possible debate, and reach a conclusion.

It is undeniable that physical condition of employees could have a direct impact on their mental health.

This

could affect both the levels of efficiency and

productivity

in the workplace.

This

essay will look at the arguments made by proponents and opponents of

this

and make a reasonable conclusion. On the one hand, it can

firstly

be said that the employees who exercise regularly, will definitely help to create a stress-free working space and

this

might lead to higher levels of

productivity

.

Furthermore

, by using gyms the workers can probably have a better work-life balance because of their more rewarding leisure time.

This

might be more motivating than,

for example

, pay increments and cash incentives which can hardly be attainable.

Finally

, being in good shape may result in a gratifying factor called job satisfaction which could enhance the quality and quantity of work.

On the other hand

, some employers think that

productivity

and efficiency don’t seem to be measurable.

As a result

, they prefer to put their money into tangible programmes

such

as on the job training programmes to help the personnel achieve better future prospects. The more tangibly and measurably employers can allot their financial resources, the more quantifiable the outcome might be.

This

may professionally safeguard both the employer and the employee. All in all,

although

allocating some resources to gyms and sports clubs subsidies seems to be immeasurable to some employers and

such

a lack of tangibility may be counted as a negative trait, health-related support can largely lead to higher

productivity

, efficacy and a better work-life balance.