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.
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 efficient, 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 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 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, so, while, at least, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 41.998997996 57% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1400.0 1615.20841683 87% => OK
No of words: 258.0 315.596192385 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42635658915 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08709190179 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 176.041082164 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.635658914729 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 424.8 506.74238477 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.0476916376 49.4020404114 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.666666667 106.682146367 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.25 7.06120827912 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.38176352705 137% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.166505626117 0.244688304435 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0598424131509 0.084324248473 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.052509099671 0.0667982634062 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0703744684554 0.151304729494 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0705343880651 0.056905535591 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.0946893788 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.19 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 78.4519038076 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.