Teacher Appreciation Week 2025: Chipotle, Buffalo Wings and others offer huge deals and discounts for educators
2025 Teacher Appreciation Week deals
Live Events
FAQs
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
Teachers form an essential part of society. As such, they truly deserve all the recognition they get for their constant efforts to guide humanity towards a bright and righteous future.With Teacher Appreciation Week finally here, it's time to recognise the contribution of education across the US.Traditionally, the period is observed during the first full workweek of May every year. This year, the observance starts from May 5 (Monday). It will last through May 9.This week will be a great opportunity for students, parents, and the entire US to honour the commitment of wonderful teachers. Several eateries and fast food chains across the country have announced hard-to-resist deals for Teacher Appreciation Week 2025. Chipotle will be giving away one free burrito e-card each to 100,000 teachers and as many healthcare workers. The National Nurses Week 2025 (May 6-12) will be celebrated almost alongside Teacher Appreciation Week. As part of the scheme announced by Chipotle, educators and healthcare workers will be required to sign up for a chance to be among the randomly selected recipients of 200,000 free burrito e-cards.The window to sign up for the randomized giveaway will close on May 12. Those who successfully get picked for the program will receive an email for the verification of their employment status through ID.me. Only those who successfully verify their employment status within 48 hours of receipt of the email will receive the reward.Aroma Joe's will offer a teacher giveaway on May 6 (Teachers' Day). Educators with valid IDs will receive a free 24-ounce drink as part of the offer.Smoothie King will run a special offer for teachers from May 6 through May 8. The promotion entails a 20 per cent discount for teachers on in-store orders, according to USA Today. To avail the offer, educators will be required to produce a valid working ID. Buffalo Wild Wings is offering a 20 per cent discount for teachers from May 5-11. Educators will be required to present their valid IDs to avail the offer. The discount will be applicable on dine-in, call-in and even walk-in orders, as per Today.com.Teachers' Celebration Week is annually celebrated from Monday to Friday of the first full week of May. That period falls between May 5 and May 9 this year.Chipotle is running a lucrative giveaway program that will randomly select 100,000 teachers who will stand to win a free burrito e-card.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
23 minutes ago
- Economic Times
NATO's 5% pledge: Rearming the West or rebalancing the world
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In an era where geopolitical boundaries are blurred and warfare has morphed from trenches to tech, NATO 's recent commitment to invest 5% of GDP annually in defence by 2035 sends a thunderous signal—not just to adversaries, but to allies questioning the alliance's strategic relevance. The Hague Summit Declaration, adopted by 32 member states, marked a pivotal moment in transatlantic security thinking. The question now is whether this is a forward-looking strategy or a reactionary bulwark clinging to the past the core of the declaration lies an emphatic reaffirmation of Article 5—the principle that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members. However, the real headline is the proposed ramp-up in defence and security-related spending: 3.5% of GDP earmarked for traditional defence infrastructure and capabilities, and an additional 1.5% for resilience, critical infrastructure protection, and innovation. This is a fundamental reset of NATO's budgetary posture, reflective of a world no longer anchored to the certainties of post-Cold War strategic rationale behind this move is evident in the literature. From Russia's protracted war in Ukraine to hybrid warfare tactics deployed through cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns, and economic coercion, the threats facing the Euro-Atlantic region are no longer just physical; they are systemic. However, the implications of NATO's new doctrine stretch far beyond including Ukraine's security under the umbrella of NATO's own, the alliance is signalling that Kyiv's stability is no longer peripheral—it is central to the European defence architecture. Although the declaration stops short of directly naming Russia as an aggressor, it unequivocally categorises it as a long-term threat. The political calculus here is clear: to maintain unity among diverse member states while advancing a credible deterrent pledging 5% of GDP—especially in times of economic uncertainty, rising public debt, and shrinking fiscal room—will not be without domestic blowback. For many European countries, where defence budgets have long played second fiddle to social spending, the pivot will require not only financial reallocation but also political will. The path to 2035 will be fraught with parliamentary debates, economic trade-offs, and inevitable scrutiny from taxpayers questioning the utility of militarisation during said, NATO's blueprint smartly distinguishes between "hard power" and 'soft shield' spending. By allocating up to 1.5% for cyber defense , critical infrastructure, industrial innovation, and civil preparedness, the alliance acknowledges the multidimensional nature of modern warfare. Drones, AI, satellite technologies, and quantum encryption will define future battles. This is NATO's attempt to future-proof compelling aspect of the declaration is its call to dismantle internal defence trade barriers and catalyse transatlantic industrial cooperation. The subtext? Europe's dependence on American defence systems must evolve into a mutual technological collaboration. With U.S. domestic politics becoming increasingly isolationist and polarised, especially in light of looming electoral uncertainties, Europe has no choice but to shoulder more of the strategic burden of timing of this declaration cannot be ignored. This occurs at a time when questions are being raised about the longevity of American leadership and the cohesion of Western alliances. Populist politics, migration crises, climate-induced conflicts, and digital disruptions are redrawing the map of security concerns. In this light, NATO's 5% commitment is as much about deterrence as it is about staying for all its ambition, the declaration raises a philosophical question: can militarised investment alone secure peace in a world where most battles are fought in cyberspace, legislatures, and courtrooms? While NATO shores up its arsenal, adversaries weaponize currency systems, manipulate public opinion through AI-generated propaganda, and infiltrate supply chains. In such a scenario, defence must be defined not only by missiles and manpower but also by legal resilience, technological agility, and economic its closing remarks, the summit's declaration looks ahead—to Türkiye in 2026 and Albania thereafter. Symbolically, this eastward shift in NATO meeting venues reflects a changing strategic frontier. The frontlines are no longer confined to the Fulda Gap but extend into the Black Sea, Indo-Pacific, and digital cloud networks connecting us NATO's 5% pledge is more than just a budgetary item. It is a test of collective resolve in a fractured global order. If implemented wisely—with strategic clarity, equitable burden-sharing, and an eye on emerging threats—it could become a blueprint for securing liberal democracies in a multipolar, volatile world. But if the focus remains confined to tanks and treaties while ignoring the algorithmic and institutional battlefields of the 21st century, NATO risks building a fortress for yesterday's warThe author is Department of Commerce, Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, St. Thomas College (Autonomous), Thrissur, Kerala
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Signature Global to invest Rs 2,200 cr on new housing project in Gurugram
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Realty firm Signature Global will invest around Rs 2,200 crore to develop a new housing project in Gurugram to expand business and achieve over 20 per cent growth in its pre-sales this fiscal company has recently launched a premium residential project, 'Cloverdale', comprising 770 apartments, on Southern Peripheral Road (SPR), Sector 71, Global emerged as the fifth largest listed real estate developer last fiscal in terms of sales bookings by achieving record pre-sales of Rs 10,290 Gurugram-based company has given a guidance of posting Rs 12,500 crore worth pre-sales in the current fiscal."We have launched a new housing project in Gurugram. Housing demand continues to be strong in this city, especially for reputed builders," Signature Global Chairman Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal told company is selling homes in a price range of Rs 4 crore to Rs 7 crore in this project, which is spread over 8 acres and is part of an overall 22-acre project is scheduled to be completed by month, Aggarwal said the company will invest around Rs 4,000 crore this fiscal to acquire land parcels and carry out construction activities in its housing projects at Global had invested Rs 1,070 crore last fiscal year to purchase 48 acres of land in Gurugram, Haryana."Land is an important raw material for real estate developers. We will be investing around Rs 1,200-1,500 crore on the acquisition of land parcels," he had said the investment in construction activities would be around Rs 2,500 crore in 2025-26 against Rs 1,900 crore in the preceding week, Signature Global announced plans to raise Rs 875 crore through issue of non-convertible debentures to refinance debt and expand business."We have taken the approval of board to raise funds. We will also seek shareholders approvals," Aggarwal said the company will use Rs 450 crore to refinance its existing debt while the remaining amount will be for business said the company is targeting to raise funds by end of August, subject to shareholders' Global, one of the leading real estate developers in the country, started its business to develop affordable housing projects but shifted its focusing on mid-income, premium and luxury segments because of high land cost in posted a net profit of Rs 101.2 crore last fiscal, a sharp jump from Rs 16.32 crore in the preceding total income grew to Rs 2,637.99 crore in the last fiscal from Rs 1,324.55 crore in inception, Signature Global has delivered 13.5 million square feet of housing projects and has a strong pipeline of about 21.6 million sq ft of saleable area in upcoming projects, along with 46.38 million sq ft of ongoing projects, targeted for completion within the next 2-3 years.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Is the Trump 2.0 agenda deliberately aimed at companies' bottom line?
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Corporate America's profits are slipping. Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis confirmed that corporate post-tax profits dropped in the first quarter by 3.3% — by far their biggest fall since the companies make less money, it's often a harbinger of an economic slowdown. In this case, it also raises the more profound question of whether the Trump 2.0 agenda is deliberately aimed at companies' bottom sounds outlandish. The S&P 500 just hit an all-time high, so Corporate USA is worth more than ever. But it makes sense. After-tax profits account for an unprecedented 10.7% of gross domestic product, when in the last 50 years of the 20th century, they never exceeded 8%. The only time approaching their current share of the economy was in 1929 on the eve of the Great Crash. If the nation is to deal with inequality, money must be redistributed from somewhere; corporate profits are an obvious source of in the Trump coalition have long held an anti-corporate agenda. A few months ago, Adrian Wooldridge argued in this space that MAGA wanted to 'end capitalism as we know it.' Specifically, he contended that many leaders in the Trump coalition wanted to 'deconstruct the great workhorse of American capitalism: the publicly owned and professionally managed corporation.'These are strong words, but sound understated compared to the writings of Kevin Roberts, head of the Heritage Foundation and a lead creator of Project 2025, an ambitious and radical agenda for Trump 2.0. He argues that BlackRock, the world's largest fund manager and a pillar of contemporary US capitalism, is 'decadent and rootless' and should be burned to the ground — a fate it should share with the Boy Scouts of America and the Chinese Communist Marjorie Taylor Greene, an outspoken Trump supporter in Congress, 'the way corporations have conducted themselves, I've always called it corporate communism.' She has urged government investigations of companies that stopped donations to Republicans after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Bannon, Trump's campaign chief in 2016, complained to Semafor that only $500 billion of the US government's $4.5 trillion came from corporate taxes. 'Since 2008, $200 billion has gone into stock repurchases. If that had gone into plants and equipment, think what that would have done for the country.'He advocated a 'dramatic increase' in taxes on corporations and the wealthy. 'For getting our guys' taxes cut, we've got to cut spending, which they're gonna resist. Where does the tax revenue come from? Corporations and the wealthy.'Several current policies are not explicitly anti-corporate, but more or less guaranteed to have that Lerner, head of the HOLT analytical service at UBS , points out that in data going back to 1870, the correlation between tariffs and companies' earnings yield (a measure of their core profitability) has been consistent. Tariffs hurt companies. Looking at the cash flow return on investment since 1950, it has risen (meaning companies grew more profitable) directly in line with rises in imports as a proportion of done jointly by Societe Generale Cross-Asset and Bernstein demonstrates that globalization has benefited US companies not only through international sales (40% of revenues for S&P 500 companies) but also through lower costs. In 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization , the S&P's cost of goods sold accounted for 70% of the revenues generated by selling them. It had been around this level for many years. That has now dropped to 63% — a massive improvement of 7 percentage points in this basic margin. Technology, consumer and industrial firms have gained the most — and stand to lose the most from 2.0 policies so far have redistributed from shareholders to workers. Vincent Deluard, macro strategist at StoneX Financial, points out that the only tax not cut by the One Big Beautiful Bill currently before Congress is corporate income tax. 'The grand bargain of the Big Beautiful Bill is to compensate for the tariffs' inflationary shock with personal income tax cuts,' he says. 'If exchange-rate adjustments, foreigners, and consumers do not pay for tariffs, corporate profits will.'Beyond that, eliminating illegal immigration and restricting foreign students raises labor costs. Threats to tax foreign investments in section 899 of the bill — which now appear likely to be withdrawn — risked reducing capital inflows and make it harder to raise own behavior has contributed to these trends. Over history, their share of GDP has tended to oscillate with the economy, rising when labor organizations' negotiating power is weak. But in this century, their profits grew less susceptible to the economic cycle, surging higher after the Edwards, a macro strategist for SocGen, argues that they pushed through margin-expanding price increases 'under the cover of two key events, namely 1) supply constraints in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, and 2) commodity cost-push pressures after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.'Margins matter more in an environment where people are conscious of the damage inflation can do to their standard of living. That gave rise to the concept of 'greedflation' — which Edwards thinks is deserved. Politicians have increasingly felt emboldened to intervene in companies' pricing decisions, something that's been off-limits since Richard Nixon's ill-fated price controls in the early 1970s. Kamala Harris proposed 'anti-gouging' policies in her unsuccessful presidential campaign; more recently, Trump forced a climbdown by companies like Amazon that proposed to itemize the impact of tariffs on the prices they to the top of a company never used to be a ladder to mega-wealth. That was reserved for entrepreneurs who founded their own firms. Modern executive pay has changed that and allowed CEOs to become billionaires by meeting unchallenging targets for their share price. The gulf between their pay and workers' wages shrieks of injustice; according to the Economic Policy Institute, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio reached 399-1 in 2021; in 1965, it was only 20-1. From 2019 to 2021, CEO pay rose 30.3% while those workers who kept their jobs through the pandemic got a raise of 3.9%.This can easily be dismissed as the politics of envy, but executive compensation now arguably skews the entire economy. Andrew Smithers, a veteran London-based fund manager and economist, and nobody's idea of a leftist, has long inveighed against the bonus culture, which he holds responsible for a disastrous misallocation of argued that America's problem was 'two decades of underinvestment':The major cause has been a change in the way company managements are paid. The 1990s saw the arrival of the bonus culture, which massively shifted management incentives and thus changed management behavior. Sadly, the change did immense damage to the economy. Managements were encouraged to invest less and, with lower investment, growth argues that companies increased their investment in response to corporate tax cuts in earlier generations, but stopped doing this once executives were paid to prioritize their share price. That led them to cut back on investment, spending money on acquisitions and share buybacks. That dampened growth, but also ensured better returns in the short run for investing in stocks is still primarily a game for those who are already wealthy, this stoked inequality still further. Opposition to high executive pay is often couched as a populist class-warrior position, but there is far more to it than Trump coalition always had anti-corporate elements, but this didn't stop his first administration from delivering for the private sector in a big way. In 2024, Trump added the support of Silicon Valley, and took the oath of office for the second time in front of a serried rank of billionaires. But he's also losing old corporate Koch, the industrialist hated by Democrats as the architect of libertarian Republican policies, has lost patience. After funding Nikki Haley's run against Trump in last year's Republican primaries, he told the Cato Institute earlier this year that too many institutions had lost their libertarian principles, and 'people have forgotten that when principles are lost, so are freedoms.' How will people like Koch respond if the administration clamps down on companies?America's key political developments tend to happen within parties, not between them. The current Republican coalition is no stranger in concept than Lyndon Johnson's Democratic Party of the 1960s, the New Deal coalition that combined multi-racial liberals from the North and West with pro-segregationist whites from the South. Once Johnson decided to choose one wing over the other, with his civil rights acts, that alliance now, the MAGA coalition includes both America's largest corporations and their most trenchant critics. The policy choices of the next few months, and their effects, will determine whether that can continue.
