Employers are always seeking ways to enhance their employees’ productivity, and subsidising healthy pursuits may be one way of achieving that. There are arguments on both sides that should be taken into consideration.
On the one hand, it might be said that if workers take bonuses to visit sports and entertainment halls,it will help them to be fitter and less stressed. Surely, in
this
case, their working time will be more efficient, leading to higher levels of output and service. Linking Words
Furthermore
, the work and life balance of the staff will hopefully be improved because their leisure time will be more fulfilling. These may even be more motivating than pay increments, perks, or financial rewards Linking Words
such
as incentives which may be hard to attain. Many employees who do sports and exercises on Linking Words
daily
basis claim that they feel healthier and more energetic during the day and are satisfied with their job.
Correct article usage
a daily
Conversely
, the problem with leisure-based subsidies is that their efficacy is virtually impossible to quantify. Linking Words
For example
, with target-related payments, employers can at least see whether the objectives are reached or not. It might Linking Words
also
be said that, if a budget was spent on extra training for workers or day release programmes, the employees would achieve better career progression and have better job prospects. These matters are all easier to measure, especially in performance reviews and appraisals, and may even help to reduce the risk of redundancy if the company restructures, downsizes or outsources its workforce.
In conclusion, it seems that, Linking Words
while
health-related subsidies are superficially attractive, the lack of measurability is a substantial drawback. Spending funds on ongoing training would appear to be a better use of company or Human Resources budgets.Linking Words
ayperixudaybergenova