Not really sure what's being said here
There seem to be two entirely different points being made, neither of which appear particularly useful. Firstly, the idea of your work badge being something you'd wear anyway. That simply doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Wearing your work ID when not at work can be anything from just stupid right up to a firing offence; having it as a separate thing you only wear at work is part of the fundamental design. And even aside from that, there isn't a single thing I wear every day - I change clothes regularly and don't wear jewellery. Exactly what item could a "smart" badge replace, other than a regular ID?
Secondly, the idea of the badge containing some kind of authentication. This isn't such a bad idea in theory, but it's difficult to see how it could be implemented. An ID badge is dumb - generally just a simple, unpowered RFID chip, probably along with a picture and other relevant information for a visual check. This means it doesn't require power or wear out in any way, and it doesn't require the user to do anything other than get close enough to a powered reader. Fingerprint readers, other biometrics, passwords, and pretty much anything else all eliminate both of those advantages. Smart badges offer a minor security benefit at great cost in both money and constant inconvenience to everyone who has to use and maintain them. Simply hiring a couple of extra security staff to inspect badges would be both cheaper and probably more effective.
"But seriously, current generation fingerprint scanners can be fooled with a photograph"
Most of them can't because they don't actually look at fingerprints at all, but rather the pattern of blood vessels underneath. This not only makes it much harder to copy them, but also requires an actual living finger and so eliminating most Hollywood-style shenanigans. Still far from foolproof, but it's nowhere near as easy as simply owning a camera and printer.