Some employers offer their employees subsidised membership 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!

Many employers are always searching various types of methods to develop employees_ productivity,

as subsidizing the employees with healthy pursuits, believing that it might be one way to achieve their goal.

, there exists an opposing argument against

view that will be discussed here.

On the one hand, it is commonly believed among employers that if the employees are avoided from being stressful at work, they will possibly have more efficient ways in dealing with the tasks given.

, the life balance of the employees and their leisure time are more fulfilling. It could

be a driving factor than paying increment or bonuses

as perks and incentives which are difficult to attain.

, being healthier my lead to be more efficient and even more creative to complete the assignments instructed by the company.

, the obstacle of the leisure-based subsidies lacks when it comes to measurement since its efficiency is impossible to assess. To illustrate, with the target related-payments, the employers can at least see the progress, whether the employees can achieve it or not. It is

assumed that if the budget was allocated to pay (

) the job training or day release program, the employees would advance their career progression to higher level. These matters are all easier to measure, especially in performance evaluation and appraisals.

option is even more motivating for the employees to push and maximise their potential to attain the reward after completing the target.

To sum up, it seems that while health related subsidies plays a pivotal role, the lack of quantification is substantial drawback. Spending budget on job training would appear to function effectively for the company.