Some employers offer their employees subsidized 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 subsidizing healthy pursuits may be one way of achieving this. There are arguments on whether employers should subsidize physical fitness activities for employees or not, however, which we will discuss both sides 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 is more fulfilling. Subsidizing memberships of gyms and sports clubs may even be more motivating than pay increments, perks, or financial rewards such as bonuses or incentives. Finally, being 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-based milestone, 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 programs, 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.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-13 | saqibmaqbool | 63 | view |
- Medical technology can increase life expectancy. How much do you agree? 72
- creativity is born with or can be taught or improved. What is your view point? 55
- Some people believe laws can change human behavior. Do you agree with this statement? 85
- There is no need for newspapers in modern world. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 74
- Some employers offer their employees subsidized 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 63
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, so, while, at least, for example, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.5418719212 190% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 6.10837438424 213% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 8.36945812808 167% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 5.94088669951 101% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 20.9802955665 81% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 31.9359605911 75% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.75862068966 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1482.0 1207.87684729 123% => OK
No of words: 268.0 242.827586207 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52985074627 5.00649968141 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1200880309 2.71678728327 115% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 139.433497537 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.641791044776 0.580463131201 111% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 379.143842365 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.6157635468 108% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.931034482759 322% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.65517241379 55% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.0329701254 50.4703680194 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.5 104.977214359 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3333333333 20.9669160288 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.41666666667 7.25397266985 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 6.9802955665 143% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 2.91625615764 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20578421186 0.242375264174 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0703762067539 0.0925447433944 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.057681942058 0.071462118173 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111941709566 0.151781067708 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0796315453598 0.0609392437508 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 12.6369458128 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.1260098522 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.54236453202 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.9458128079 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.09 11.5310837438 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.27 8.32886699507 123% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 55.0591133005 171% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.94827586207 111% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.