"Some say it may be more effective just to award employees cash and prizes for weight loss rather than devote resources to long-term wellness programs" (Obesity, 2008, Consumer Affairs). However, this would seem to unjustly penalize poorer workers, as workers with "limited economic means may not have the ability to pay for gym memberships, smoking cessation drugs, or more nutritious food. Indeed, data from several studies confirm that those in lower socioeconomic classes have poorer smoking cessation rates and diets with less whole grains, lean meats and fresh fruits and vegetables" (Mhurchu 2010). Less affluent workers are less likely to work for companies like Google that provide amenities like on-site gyms or even gym memberships. Ironically, workers who are most in need of better food and exercise programs are the least likely to receive them as part of their employee benefits packages.

Critics of pure 'pay-for-weight loss' or smoking cessation programs strategies stress the need for employers to provide the tools to make weight loss possible. Penalizing and rewarding workers with carrots and sticks to not make finding safe places to exercise easier or healthy food more accessible is discriminatory and does not encourage long-term lifestyle changes and cost savings. That is why the Google system of free gyms, fitness classes, health assessments, and free, healthy lunches is so valuable. Even the fact that Google allows workers to commute through company-provided transportation reduces the stresses of commute time, which can be linked to excess weight gain and a lack of exercise because of the time that is lost in transit. (it also enables workers to use their laptops to work during commuting time). And Google's generous health insurance packages also encourage workers to go frequently to doctors who are likely to alert employees if weight gain and smoking-related complaints are of concern.

Will the rewards for the company in health cost savings balance out the loss of time as workers devote more hours to the gym? One review conducted by the British Medical Commission noted that "a healthy weight workforce may also help create a positive corporate image. This is particularly relevant…where many employees are involved...

However, it remains difficult to empirically track the success of workplace health-promotion measures, given a lack of controls upon the quasi-experimental research examining the success of different programs.
The British Medical Commission found that self-reported questionnaires about diet are the most frequent method used to assess compliance regarding food intake, which can be notoriously unreliable. Comparing employee healthcare costs and productivity between workplaces can be difficult, because companies such as Google may attract healthy, affluent workers vs. companies that do not provide such benefits and begin with a worker population less inclined or able to seek out health-promoting activities. However, while the methods of intervention in the workplace may still need to be tested and refined, the costs of unhealthy employees to society and to companies remain clear, and the number of employee wellness programs is likely to grow in the future.