United Teachers of Pasadena President Disputes School District’s Labor Bargaining Report

The president of United Teachers of Pasadena is pushing back against a Pasadena Unified School District update emailed Tuesday to the school district community about ongoing labor negotiations, disputing key claims about bargaining session topics, the district’s financial outlook, and the cost of union proposals.

Jonathan Gardner, UTP president, said the district’s Dec. 16 communication mischaracterized the Dec. 15 bargaining session and overstated the district’s fiscal challenges.

“Even though they spent half of their update on the health and welfare proposals, we did not talk about that this past Monday at all,” Gardner said. “For them to have spent half of that update on referencing that is really not appropriate.”

The district’s update stated that the fourth bargaining session of the 2025-26 negotiation season took place Dec. 15, and devoted substantial space to health and welfare benefit discussions.

Financial Projections Disputed

Gardner challenged the district’s assertion of a $30 million structural deficit and warnings that unrestricted reserves could turn negative by 2027-28 without a fiscal stabilization plan.

“I believe it’s an overstatement,” Gardner said, citing the district’s Dec. 11 interim budget presentation. “It included that there were an additional $17 million in state and local funding sources that they’ve not accounted for.”

The district’s update stated that the Los Angeles County Office of Education conditionally approved PUSD’s 2025-26 budget in September contingent upon submission and implementation of a fiscal stabilization plan. LACOE representatives warned the Board of Education in October that without sufficient response, PUSD was at risk of county oversight, which could extend to appointment of an administrator to replace the local superintendent.

The district emphasized that its fiscal distress “has been repeatedly and publicly documented through financial presentations to the Board, County oversight, public communication, and the SBAC process.” The Superintendent’s Budget Advisory Committee reconvened in fall 2025 to discuss eliminations and reductions, with additional workstreams examining district spending “with the goal of optimizing efficiencies and recommending strategic reductions.”

The district also noted the timing of union proposals: “Within this context, the day after the Board approved staff reductions and eliminations, UTP submitted proposals addressing salary and class size.”

Gardner downplayed the county oversight threat.

“The county oversight is very much overstated. We’re very far away from that,” Gardner said. “We have a chance of becoming qualified, which will mean additional oversight. But it’s not like it goes from zero to 60. You don’t suddenly have every single decision taken over by the county.”

Gardner also questioned a spike in contracted services spending, noting the budget showed $150 million compared to $100 million in the adopted budget. “There wasn’t a clear answer from the district about why that was the case,” he said.

Union Proposals Framed as Cost-Saving

The district’s communication characterized UTP proposals — including a 2.35% salary increase, class size caps, 90% health and welfare coverage for early retirees, and special education caseload limits — as bearing ongoing fiscal impact.

Gardner offered a different analysis.

On the early retiree health coverage, Gardner said the union’s analysis shows the district would save $1.6 million because it would allow teachers close to retirement to leave before age 65, reducing the need for layoffs. “We do not agree with their analysis that it’s an extra cost,” he said.

On the 2.35% salary increase effective July 1, 2025, Gardner said the figure represents the state’s cost-of-living adjustment provided to the district last year. He said UTP did not demand a 1% COLA previously, causing teachers to fall behind in several critical areas on the salary schedule, “especially in the middle of our salary schedule, which are like your workhorses, those in the seven or more years of experience.”

“We’re not asking to be at the top,” Gardner said. “We do believe that we should not go backwards.”

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Jan. 23, 2026.