Some employers offer their employees subsidised memebership 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. v.1

Certain employers provide extra pre-paid activities for their personnal, hoping that it will increase personnal's productivity and make them healthier, however, a different kind employers see no meaning and benefit in doing so. In this essay, the both points will be considered and disscussed. First and foremost, it can be noticed that overall workers' performance indeed might be reinforced, if some extra outdoor activities will be provided for them. For example, if employee will receive sponsored by employer vacations and take advantage of it, then he or she possibly will appreciate it, and furthermore will show a better results during its work time. Another words, the fact that employer did show some care may raise the incentives of the worker to perform the given task more efficiently. Thus, the so-called job satisifacation can be in itself a motivating factor. Conversely, if employer decides to not to do anything in terms of a provided leisure time for their personnal, then it most likely will result in negative overall performace of employees. Example of this, can be walkouts or other sort of protests organised by unhappy workers. Consequently the company may start to lose money by losing the profit gained from increased workers' performance. Thus, it is essentially vital for company to include as a part of managment course, the pre-paid leisure activities for their personnal. In conclusion, it can be confidently conveyed, 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.