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.
In our modern era, employers are always seeking ways to boost productivity and work efficiency for their firms. Intending to pursue this achievement, some employers are now focusing on subsidising health services to their employees. Other employers, on the other hand, argue that this implication brings no benefit. In this essay, we will discuss both arguments.
On the one hand, giving staff the opportunity to access health services will counteract them from their sedentary lifestyles, thus, promote work efficiency and increase the output for the company. The employees might feel fulfilled as they have used most of their leisure time to improve their health and become fitter. This is believed to be more motivating than pay increments, perks or financial rewards such as bonuses or incentives which may be hard to attain. Furthermore, doing more exercises will optimize the brainpower, which encourages employees’ creativity, inspiration and might come up with great ideas. For instance, research conducted by a group of scientists from John Hopkins University has found that there is a correlation between exercising and the brain’s function. The result showed that those who exercise more frequently will achieve better outcomes than those who do not exercise much.
Conversely, the problem with leisure-based subsidise 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. If this budget is spent on (namely) on the job training or day released programmes, the employees will sharpen both their soft and hard skills and will achieve better career progression. This will allow the employers to measure the effectiveness of their staff more easily, especially in performance reviews and appraisals.
Overall, it seems that, while health-related subsidise is superficially attractive, they still have some drawbacks such as lack of measurements and in some cases, this may even keep the company back from success. Financing for training programs would be a better use of the firm’s budget.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, furthermore, if, may, so, still, thus, while, at least, for example, for instance, such as, in some cases, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 24.0651302605 116% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 41.998997996 79% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1805.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 327.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51987767584 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95614116478 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.623853211009 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 535.5 506.74238477 106% => 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: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1767805076 49.4020404114 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.8125 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4375 20.7667163134 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.5 7.06120827912 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.350992728937 0.244688304435 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10432298153 0.084324248473 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0596005379072 0.0667982634062 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201411442229 0.151304729494 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0863439954813 0.056905535591 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 50.2224549098 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 78.4519038076 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.