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, 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. Furthermore, the work/life balance of the staff will hopefully be improved, because their leisure time will be more fulfilling.
This may even be more motivating than pay increments, perks, or financial rewards such as bonuses or incentives which may be hard to attain. Finally, feeling healthier may lead to better job satisfaction, which is in itself a motivating factor.
Conversely, the problem with such 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 this budget was spent on (for instance) 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.
Overall, it seems that, while health-related subsidies are superficially attractive, the lack of ability to measure is a substantial drawback. Spending funds for ongoing training would appear to be a better use of company or Human Resources budgets.
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,
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.
Furthermore
, the work/life balance of the staff will
hopefully
be
improved
,
because
their leisure time will be more fulfilling.
This may even be more motivating than pay increments, perks, or financial rewards such as bonuses or incentives which may be
hard
to attain.
Finally
, feeling healthier may lead to
better
job satisfaction, which is in itself a motivating factor.
Conversely
, the problem with such 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 this budget
was spent
on (
for instance
) 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.
Overall
, it seems that, while health-related subsidies are
superficially
attractive, the lack of ability to measure is a substantial drawback. Spending funds for ongoing training would appear to be a
better
use
of
company
or Human Resources budgets.