IELTS TASK 2

TOPIC: 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.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

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
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.
To sum up, 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.