Employers are always seeking ways to increase the output of their employees, and subsidizing healthy pursuits might be one way of achieving this. There are arguments on both sides, however, I believe that this may not be the best method to enhance the productivity of the staff.
On the one hand, it might be said that when workers are fitter and less stressed, they work more efficiently, leading to higher levels of output and services. Furthermore, their leisure time will be more fulfilling which will increase their job satisfaction and serve as a motivation. Such subsidies may prove more beneficial to employees than pay increments, perks, or financial rewards like bonuses and incentives, which may be hard to attain.
Conversely, the problem with leisure-based subsidies is that their efficacy is almost impossible to quantify as opposed to target-related rewards, which can be measured in performance appraisals. Additionally, the budget of the company can be spent on something more beneficial to the career progression of the staff members, for instance, on the job training, which can reward the employees with better job prospects. Many workers might prefer such rewards to subsidized memberships of gyms and sports centers since it can reduce the risk of redundancy if the company restructures, downsizes, or outsources its workforce.
To conclude, although health-related subsidies seem attractive and beneficial to the employees of any company, its effects are hard to measure and it has substantial drawbacks. If employers were to spend money on methods that develop and refine the skills of their staff, such as ongoing training, this would be a better step to attain higher productivity.
Employers are always seeking ways to increase the output of their
employees
, and subsidizing healthy pursuits might be one way of achieving this. There are arguments on both sides,
however
, I believe that this may not be the best method to enhance the productivity of the staff.
On the one hand, it might
be said
that when workers are fitter and less
stressed
, they work more
efficiently
, leading to higher levels of output and services.
Furthermore
, their leisure time will be more fulfilling which will increase their job satisfaction and serve as a motivation. Such subsidies may prove more beneficial to
employees
than pay increments, perks, or financial
rewards
like bonuses and incentives, which may be
hard
to attain.
Conversely
, the problem with leisure-based subsidies is that their efficacy is almost impossible to quantify as opposed to target-related
rewards
, which can
be measured
in performance appraisals.
Additionally
, the budget of the
company
can
be spent
on something more beneficial to the career progression of the staff members,
for instance
, on the job training, which can
reward
the
employees
with better job prospects.
Many
workers might prefer such
rewards
to subsidized memberships of gyms and sports centers since it can
reduce
the
risk
of redundancy if the
company
restructures, downsizes, or outsources its workforce.
To conclude
, although health-related subsidies seem attractive and beneficial to the
employees
of any
company
, its effects are
hard
to measure and it has substantial drawbacks. If employers were to spend money on methods that develop and refine the
skills
of their staff, such as ongoing training, this would be a better step to attain higher productivity.