Luyện tập: Work: Subsidies for Employees - Khóa học sinh viên Drive

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.

Hiện nghĩa

Hiện vai trò câu

Highlight nội dung

Topic statementEmployers are always seeking ways to enhance their employees’ productivitynăng suất, and subsidisingtrợ cấp healthy pursuits may be one way of achieving this. Supporting statementThere are arguments on both sides, however, which we will discuss here.

Topic statementOn 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 outputsản lượng and service. Topic statementFurthermore, the work/life balancecân bằng giữa đời sống – công việc of the staff will hopefully be improved, because their leisure time will be more fulfilling. Supporting statementThis may even be more motivatingtạo động lực than pay incrementssự tăng lương, perksbổng lộc, or financial rewardsthưởng về mặt tài chính such as bonusestiền thưởng or incentivessự khuyến khích which may be hard to attain. Topic statementFinally, feeling healthier may lead to better job satisfaction which is in itself a motivating factor.

Topic statementConversely, the problem with such leisure-based subsidies is that their efficacytính hiệu lực is virtuallyhầu như impossible to quantify. ExampleFor example, with target-relatedliên quan đến mục tiêu payments, employers can at least see whether the objectives are reached or not. Supporting statementIt might also be said that, if this budget was spent on (for instance) on the job trainingđào tạo tại chỗ or day release programmeschương trình huấn luyện và giảng dạy ban ngày, the employees would achieve better career progressionsự tiến triển trong sự nghiệp and have better job prospectssự hứa hẹn trong công việc. Supporting statementThese matters are all easier to measuređánh giá, especially in performance reviewsđánh giá thành tích and appraisalssự đánh giá, thẩm định, and may even help to reduce the risk of redundancysự dư thừa lao động if the company restructurestái cơ cấu, downsizescắt giảm or outsourcesthuê ngoài its workforcelực lượng lao dộng.

SummaryOverall, it seems that, while health-related subsidies are superficiallyvề bề ngoài attractive, the lack of measurabilitykhả năng đánh giá is a substantial drawback. SummarySpending funds on ongoing trainingchương trình đào tạo đang thực hiện would appear to be a better use of company or Human Resourcesnhân sự budgets.

workforceoutsourcesdownsizesrestructuresredundancyappraisalson the job trainingtarget-relatedefficacybonusesfinancial rewardsperkspay incrementsmotivatingoutputproductivitysubsidisingwork/life balanceincentivesvirtuallyday release programmescareer progressionjob prospectsmeasureperformance reviewssuperficiallymeasurabilityongoing traininghuman resources

Employers are always seeking ways to enhance their employees’ năng suất, and trợ cấp 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 sản lượng and service. Furthermore, the cân bằng giữa đời sống – công việc of the staff will hopefully be improved, because their leisure time will be more fulfilling. This may even be more tạo động lực than sự tăng lương, bổng lộc, or thưởng về mặt tài chính such as tiền thưởng or sự khuyến khích 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 tính hiệu lực is hầu như impossible to quantify. For example, with liên quan đến mục tiêu 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) đào tạo tại chỗ or chương trình huấn luyện và giảng dạy ban ngày, the employees would achieve better sự tiến triển trong sự nghiệp and have better sự hứa hẹn trong công việc. These matters are all easier to đánh giá, especially in đánh giá thành tích and sự đánh giá, thẩm định, and may even help to reduce the risk of sự dư thừa lao động if the company tái cơ cấu, cắt giảm or thuê ngoài its lực lượng lao dộng.

Overall, it seems that, while health-related subsidies are về bề ngoài attractive, the lack of khả năng đánh giá is a substantial drawback. Spending funds on chương trình đào tạo đang thực hiện would appear to be a better use of company or nhân sự budgets.