Employers are always seeking ways to enhance their employees’ productivity, and subsidising healthy pursuits may be one way of achieving 
this
. There are arguments on both sides, Linking Words
however
, which we will discuss here. On the one hand, it might be said that if workers are fitter and less stressed, their working time will be more efficient, leading to higher levels of output and service. Linking Words
Furthermore
, the work/life balance of the staff will hopefully be improved, because their leisure time will be more fulfilling. Linking Words
This
 may even be more motivating than pay increments, perks, or financial rewards Linking Words
such
 as bonuses or incentives which may be hard to attain. Linking Words
Finally
, feeling healthier may lead to better job satisfaction which is in itself a motivating factor. Linking Words
Conversely
, the problem with Linking Words
such
 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 Linking Words
this
 budget was spent on (Linking Words
for instance
) Linking Words
on the job
 training 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. Add a hyphen
on-the-job
Overall
, 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