Prime Minister Gordon Brown has reportedly realised the benefits of office fruit after it was revealed that he eats up to nine bananas each day. It is believed that Mr. Brown’s wife Sarah is responsible for the change
in diet, with the PM eating bananas as a replacement for Kit Kats ahead of what is expected to be a gruelling election campaign.
What started out as a bid to stop staff tripping over loose cables has morphed into making sure they have carb-free food, counselling and the odd cholesterol check. Should employers be responsible for the health of their staff?
The ‘wellness’ way
Increasingly, (mostly large) companies are developing ‘wellness’ programmes to tackle their workers’ health issues; such programmes encompass anything from massages, stress balls, nutrition advice or posture police dispensing massages to staff who don’t sit up straight.
With healthy results
Research by wellbeing consultancy Vielife, from the Harvard Medical School claims ‘healthy’ workers are 20% more productive; and good news. Thanks to its wellness programme, Unilever improved the digestion of one-third of its staff.
Holistic approach
More employers are starting to blur the line between what happens in and out
of work - regarding anything that may impinge on work performance as matters to be ‘managed’ by them
What a waist!
Critics claim the approach is unhealthy:
- Big brother at work: Could promotions, for example, start to be linked to individuals’ wellness results?
- No quick fix The TUC, for example, claims many ‘wellness’ programmes simply skate along the surface of problems – e.g. tackling stress by offering desk massage and free pedometers while doing nothing about flexible working or shortening the working day.
- Safety first employers should stick to the original meaning of ‘health, safety and welfare’ as defined by the Health and Safety at Work Act - physical hazards - not physical fitness
For more business insights, dip into the Bulletpoint archive or if you would like to register for access to the archive email us
