Whose Life is it Anyways?

1) How can employers like Scotts Miracle-Gro justify the expense of providing employees with free access to doctors, a pharmacy, a gym, and a personal trainer?
For major companies such as Scotts Miracle-Gro, they justify the expenses of providing employees with these accommodations with the ambition to help their workers achieve a healthy work-life balance. The bottom-line of any business should be the work itself, but how well this transcends is based on the performance of the workers. This leads to the question, how can businesses help their employees work in an effective way? Scotts Miracle-Gro believes in work starts at home, how healthy and balanced their workers are will play a big role on the overall efficacy of the workplace. These excess amenities from the company supports their desire to better fit their employees' needs and wants. The expenses of providing extra accommodations is costly, but has proven to effectively increase a company's performance and the well-being of the workers.

2) What lifestyle changes might employers encourage in the future to increase performance efficiency  and performance effectiveness?
For many employers, many approaches to encourage increased performance efficiency and performance effectiveness lies in the policies of the company. For example, what employers could do in the future can be regulating routine drug tests to support their policy. This will force their employees to adhere to the rules with consequences given if ignored. Workers will be more strict on themselves and more wary of their behaviours through this procedure in the workplace. Another approach could be offering their employees extra accommodations that supports their wellness regulations. Assets such as healthy food catering, pharmaceutical benefits and exercising lessons are just the few examples of amenities that would benefit workers. These methods to encourage increased performance efficiency and performances effectiveness would greatly impact employees in a positive way.

3) Should employers regulate behaviour after work hours? Why or why not?
I believe, employers should not regulate behaviours after work hours, but to support their wellness regulations that pertains to the employees work balances. Every worker has the right to do what they choose after work hours if it doesn't affect their company in a negative way. However, as another means employers can attempt to help their workers by accommodating to their needs and wants. If a company desires so much from their workers, they need to actively show their employees. These employers have the job to perform around their employees behaviours after work in a approach that benefits both sides.

4) As stated in chapter 1, there is more emphasis on respecting people as valuable strategic assets to be nurtured and developed, not as costs to be controlled. Do you believe the programs and policies at Scotts nature and develop employees or treat them as costs to be controlled.
No, I feel that the programs and policies at Scotts develops and benefits their employees in their well-beings. I believe, the employers main goal is how are they going to help their workers get better, in context to their performance and capability to balance a healthy work-life. The company itself will always be the most important aspect, but its workers are the foundation of how well it will keep afloat. To do this employers look to help their employees, not to create them into robots for the company. The rules and regulations at Scotts aims to assist their employees well-beings from issues that effect the overall performance of the company.