Some employers offer their employees subsidised membership of gyms and sports clubs, believing that this will make their staff 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

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.

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

such

as incentives which may be hard to attain. Many employees who do sports and exercises on

daily

Correct article usage

a daily

show examples

basis claim that they feel healthier and more energetic during the day and are satisfied with their job.

Conversely

, the problem with leisure-based subsidies is that their efficacy is virtually impossible to quantify.

For example

, with target-related payments, employers can at least see whether the objectives are reached or not. It might

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,

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.