Some employers offer their employees subsidised membership of gyms amd sports, 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 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 effecient, 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 wtih such leisure-based subsidies is that 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 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 measurability is a substantial drawback. Spending funds on ongoing training would appear to be a better use of company or Human Resources budgets.