Debate and private kindergarten | High-level hazing around kindergarten

The PBL sides with Venstre in an attempt to obscure the debate by not distinguishing between nonprofit and commercial preschools. Why are the left and the PBL not interested in leading a realistic, fact-based debate? Why don’t they provide numbers where ideals are left out, so we can actually discuss what’s the matter?

He pushes perfectly in front of him

The PBL is pushing non-profit players in front of it to legitimize increasing privatization in the sector, even though competition for welfare services ends up largely in the hands of commercial firms. In a previous post, I outlined how to commercialize the nursery business, where large commercial players pay small nonprofits, Standardization and completely destructive to the diversity of the sector.

Non-profit actors disappear as commercial actors grow.

As is well known, he was received by Mr. Kåre Hagen, Chairman of the Welfare Services Committee Strong criticism To distort and embezzle what was actually stated in the report of the committee he headed. But since Marius Iversen highlights this, let us consider the claim that “The welfare society does not have a problem of leakage in the sense that funds destined for private entities seep into private welfare profits.”.

completely separate

Iversen’s problem with discussing Hagen’s statements is that this cannot be found again in the NOU report. Kåre Hagen’s statements are completely separate from what is actually stated in the report, and no one can guarantee that tax money and public financing of commercial actors will not go to the profit that the owners wing as surplus.

Read also

Rødt and Venstre are quite different in the discussion about private kindergartens

The Social Welfare Services Commission has concluded that they do not have sufficient grounds to say how much public money is actually going into the social welfare services, they are finding structural change with more trade groups and fewer nonprofits, they are finding financial acrobatics, but they can’t find a limit .

flowery claims

However, committee chair Hagen makes claims embellished in the same style as the story it tells PBL’s Iversen: Iversen talks about what the so-called savings society gets by opening up to trade. It is nothing but deception, mixing numbers and exploiting loopholes in the system where profit can be extracted.

We know that commercial kindergartens have practiced fewer and fewer employees as long as they are allowed to do so, that their employees are paid worse, and that those working in commercial kindergartens have much worse pension conditions than employees in a municipality. In other words, there is scope for making money, at the expense of children or employees, which they will exploit commercially.

You must work in firefighting

The public sector must follow suit and put in place regulations to limit these harmful side effects of commercial social welfare services. Obviously, this work costs money and is costly extra work.

Read also

Dear Kindergarten Mom – Reed is eager to take away your freedom of choice

The opportunity for the municipality to manage the capacity and distribution in the kindergartens will ensure that any reduction is much more among the kindergartens in the municipality. It will be able to prevent the closure of nurseries and thus contribute to security, predictability and freedom of choice for children, parents and staff.

profit in operations

Rødt welcomes non-profit daycare centers that use any surplus in their operations, for the benefit of children and staff, more than welcome. On the other hand, what we do not want in the municipality are commercial kindergartens that have straw in the state coffers and operate for profit.

Read also

Democracy and the kindergarten sector

And Iversen, one last call to you. Separate the chaff from the wheat. Separate nonprofits from commercial ones.

Private is not the same thing, and you know that very well.