Write a (3 page paper) in APA-format and include at least five scholarly references. (Your textbook may count as one of these.) Design an ideal workplace by addressing the following topics:
Workplace hierarchies—What can a sociological viewpoint teach us about dominance hierarchies within the workplace? How can such hierarchies be crafted in order to find a balance between workplace stability and employee marginalization?
Workplace culture—In which ways can we see the workplace as its own unique culture, having its own jargon, customs, and rituals? What can we do to cultivate workplace cultures that are more functional for employees?
Distance traveled between work and home—What are the challenges faced by workers all across the world as suburbanization expands and the distance traveled to the workplace increases? Can this be addressed through telecommuting and a more technologically liberated workplace?
Required job skills and training—What can our society do to better equip workers with those important skill sets that enable economic success? How can employers partner with government in terms of cultivating workers with higher levels of skill?
Technology—In which ways has technology made the workplace more productive? What are the possible downsides to an increasingly technological workplace? For example, do we see technology replacing workers or displacing them to lower skilled jobs?
The contrast between the Canadian cultural “mosaic” and the American “melting pot” refers to the popular conception of two different models of migrant acculturation. From a sociological perspective, this distinction refers to contrasting models of integration and assimilation that are central to Canada’s self-conception as a multicultural society. The concepts of cultural mosaic and melting pot arose from the challenge of conceiving cultural identity in settler nations. Countries like Canada and the United States could not claim to be ethnically, linguistically, or religiously cohesive in the way that European nation states did as they were founded by diverse migrant groups who dispossessed indigenous peoples of their lands. The United States developed an image of a melting pot in which civic belonging led to national identity, and cultural or religious differences were made secondary through “Americanization,” a form of partial assimilation (Castles, de Haas, & Miller, 2013, p. 266). Founded on the premise of biculturalism between Protestant English and Catholic French groups, Canada has seen itself reflecting the idea of a cultural mosaic. This model is explicitly contrasted with the American melting pot and refers to a form of multiculturalism that allows greater room for coexistence between different groups (Banting, Courchene, & Seidle, 2007). Instead of emphasizing assimilation, this model emphasizes integration. While these terms originate in popular discourses about immigration and acculturation, their relation to the concepts of assimilation and integration give them sociological meaning. From a sociological perspective, the concepts of cultural mosaic and melting pot refer to different models of migrant acculturation within their new society. These models are reflected in the theories of pluralism and assimilation, respectively. Pluralism is reflected in the development of visible minority neighbourhoods in major urban centres. In Canada, visible minority neighbourhoods have been expanding rapidly since the 1980s, making the “ethnic mosaic in Canadian cities more diverse and visible” (Hou & Picot, 2004, p. 13). Visibility is an important aspect of this expansion. Visible minority neighbourhoods are visible not only because of their populations but also because of the presence of businesses and services that cater to a particular ethnic community. The ethos of pluralism and multiculturalism views this kind of visibility as positive for the overall Canadian polity, with the maintenance of ethnic identity and religious, educational, and welfare institutions specific to that community as positive (Hou & Picot, 2004). This model is distinct from an assimilationist perspective on immigration. The spatial assimilation model proposes that immigrants initially live in visible minority neighbourhoods because they lack resources, but as they improve their situation they convert their socioeconomic achievements into an improved spatial position and assimilate with the majority group (Fong & Wilkes, 1999). This model is reminiscent of the melting pot, where social and cultural differences that initially characterize migrant groups are lessened over time until said group primarily identifies with the constructed, civic identity of the settler nation. But while these models are associated with Canada, in the case of the cultural mosaic, and the United States, in the case of the melting pot, the application of these models to Canada shows greater complexity in the sociology of migration. The idea that migrants to Canada retain their cultural identity as part of a mosaic rather than assimilating has been contradicted by sociological research. Rather than retaining all unique cultural or social characteristics over time, immigrant minorities do appear to assimilate in certain key ways. Some migrant groups have considerably greater rates of gender inequality in labour force participation than is found in mainstream Canadian populations (Reitz, Phan, & Banerjee, 2015). This inequality is greatest among religious groups such as Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, though it appears to reflect national cultures in countries of origin more than it reflects differences in religious beliefs concerning the social roles of men and women (Reitz, Phan, & Banerjee, 2015). Recent migrants to Canada, in other words, retain the gendered division of labour found in their home countries to an extent >GET ANSWER