Subsidised membership of gyms may increase efficacy at work. Discuss from both side and give own opinion

Employers are always seeking ways to enhance their employees’ productivity, and subsidizing healthy pursuits may be one way to achieve this. There are arguments on both sides, however, as 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 stuff 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 and 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, if this budget was spent on, for instance, on the job training or day release programmes, the employees would achieve better career progression and job prospects. These maters 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 better use of company or Human resources budget.