Some employees 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.
ANSWER
employers offer their employees subsidised membership of gyms and sports clubs is beneficial or not becomes a controversial concept. While there are some strong arguments against this, I still believe that it is a necessary aspect of making their staff stronger and more effective in the work environment.
There are several reasons why people might argue that subsiding membership of gyms is an unnecessary burden on staff. It is clearly seen that the employers suppose that taking care of health’s staff is their own desire. It is no longer an obligation for they lose a budget on offering their employees subsidised membership of sports clubs. If they offered their staff to do so, it would be tough to control a significant proportion of health’s stall as well as mentioning suitable exercises.
In spite of the above arguments, I support the view that employees doing exercises on a regular basis has an important role to play at workspace. Nowadays, the cost of living is getting higher , workers have to work longer hours in order to pay, they therefore do not have time to consolidate their health. It has a severe impact upon their work performance and work productivity. If employees are not effective at work, it might have an adverse impact on the company's quantity and yield. Even so, the owners have no option but to offer their employees subsidised membership of gyms. Due to It might be risky if they let their staff leave their jobs and then hire a team of new staff.
In conclusion, subsidizing gyms or sports clubs for staff certainly has its drawbacks, but I personally believe that the benefits outweigh them in the long term.