Chec out my name tag. You're in my world now, grandma.

Dude, why are you so heated about this? No pun intended. Seems really weird.

Anyway.

The independent contractor thing is great. I'm sure if this case went to court they would have a wonderful argument.

But that doesn't change my initial point. Eventually, one of those ladies might not be thrilled with this arrangement. Eventually it could easily appear as if the lady with a 500% profit margin is paying little old ladies 2$ an hour to make products for her. And in the court of public opinion it could end up looking very bad.

Is it guaranteed to happen? Of course not. But there's a reason that 92 year old people are generally not very utilized in the work force. Among those reasons are lack of performance, lack of speed, etc.

All of those things could easily contribute to an issue in the future and the bigger this company gets and the more old ladies are involved the harder it's going to be for them to keep everyone happy.

I guess all of the derping from highstakesfan about slave labor, sweat shops, Fox News(???), etc. got me a little worked up. I apologize.

I have to say, though, that I am genuinely surprised that people seem completely unfamiliar with the difference between an employee and an independent contractor.

This would be something in favor of allowing them to be classified as independent contractors.

I tried to edit my post too late and don't want to edit again, so here it is:

I guess all of the derping from highstakesfan about slave labor, sweat shops, Fox News(???), etc. got me a little worked up. I apologize.

I have to say, though, that I am genuinely surprised that people seem completely unfamiliar with the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. There are an endless number of employer / independent contractor relationships that do not require any sort of minimum wage. This an extremely common practice.

This would be something in favor of allowing them to be classified as independent contractors. A couple of others off the top of my head: They work when and where they want and at their own pace. They work for an entrepreneurial venture making a unique product designed by their employer.

Another thing that people probably don't realize is that there isn't a lot of money to be made in the field of hand knitting and crocheting, anyway. Buying patterns and knitting things by hand is not something anyone does for a living. My mother has been knitting and crocheting as a hobby her entire life. She co-owned a yarn shop for almost a decade. I asked her for some specifics yesterday. She says it takes her 30+ hours to hand knit a sweater. Imagine how long it takes someone who hasn't been knitting almost every day for years. Her most profitable item has been personalized Christmas stockings forever. People at church have a kid, they need a Christmas stocking. The yarn for a stocking costs $8 and it takes her ~two hours to make them with a machine and then finishing by hand. She sells them for $20. Big moneymaker. Again, it's a hobby. She makes a little money doing something she loves.

She wanted to know why I was asking about this. 'Argument on the Internet lol.' Anyway, she looked at the bags. She pointed out a few things. The retirees are not putting out a finished product. They are just knitting the basic form of the bag. They would be using heavy or bulky yarn. Think of the work that goes in after they are finished. The bags are 'felted.' This is why thy don't look like a purse that was simply knit out of yarn. 'Felted' means they are thrown in a washing machine and then shaped/formed when taken out. The bags still need straps, buckles, a lining, etc. A big silver sterling buckle probably costs $20+, for example. I don't know how long it takes to finish a bag after knitting, but the labor cost for these is a hell of a lot more than $17 in the end.

My mother said $17 a bag isn't bad as far as knitting goes. When you add in the cost and time involved with getting a pattern and yarn and then selling whatever it is you decide to make, you're not going to make an hourly more than that independently, anyway.

There are probably certain items where someone could squeeze out $10 an hour. Maybe they could make those arm knit infinity scarves or something. Prices on those came down as soon as a bunch of people realized how quickly they can be made, though. The only way to really make money from hand knit products is to do what Sarah Oliver did: design a product, create a brand, market/build the brand, find people to make your product. I imagine these seniors are free to go ahead and do all of that if they choose. Maybe there is a non-compete clause lol.

cant believe kevin made an offer that big.

Robert was pissed, he was the first to offer a really fair deal and of course they looked over him.

to the poster who wants lori out of the show is being ridiculous.

she brings a tremendous amount of upside and actually has a high offer/banter rate and shes comes across nice. Shes ok.

I haven't seen that episode yet so there could be something I'm missing but I'm pretty confidant they're going to run into problems if they are, or try to categorize them as independent contractors.

Before anyone gets worked up that does not mean that you can't pay them any $ amount they're willing to work for per piece. You can pay employees by the piece but they would have to meet strict requirements to be independent contractors, which (based on what several people have described as their business model) they do not.

I've owned a business for the last 2 years that uses stay at home moms to sew products for us and we pay by the piece but they cannot be categorized as independent contractors unless they meet several requirements - which a bunch of retirees knitting bags for a single company certainly do not.

If the company they're working for provides the materials, patterns, sets the price per piece, and they only work for that company the IRS definitely considers them employees. That's not to say a lot of small companies don't engage in the practice and operate in a grey area but I certainly wouldn't want to be running my business that way after being on national tv.

I've paid 2 lawyers ( a lot of $), a cpa and had multiple conversations with the IRS about this very topic and the end result is I have to pay people who work from home sewing bags as employees.

This means you're required to withhold taxes from their checks, pay for unemployment and worker's comp. You're not required to provide health insurance unless you provide it for your other employees but you must provide exactly the same benefits for a stay at home employee as you do the employees working in the office.

Flame away

Lol what a coincidence that we have a business owner in this exact sector here.

The pitch made it clear that the company provided the materials and the patterns and there was nothing that indicated that the women had more input in the company than just knitting the bags and being a marketing face for the company.

However, we haven't seen any proof that they use the independant contractor model, that was just suggested itt. The only thing that was mentioned in the episode is that they were paid $17 per bag.

Your post seems to indicate that you can still pay an employee per piece with an equivalent that is below the minimum wage? Or did I missinterpret your post? If that is true, what is the logic behind that being possible? It kind of negates the purpose of a minimum wage, no?

I have no control over how long it takes a person to make something at home. Some of them work for a few minutes and then make dinner or take a nap, watch tv or do whatever. Paying someone by the hour in that scenario is a recipe for disaster.

As long as the person is fine with the rate per piece being paid there's no problem. If they don't want to be paid that rate they don't have to accept the work.

It's really not that different than running a business where you require someone to produce x # per hour or they get fired except that the person deciding the # per hour is them and not the employer.

I have some seamstresses who make 3x per hour more than other seamstresses but they're all happy because they control their own workload and work at their own pace. I'm sure a few of them probably make less than minimum wage but they also feed and care for their children, watch tv, chat on the phone or whatever.

It's really no different than if granny takes a nap, forgets what she was doing, has to take 15 minutes to go clean her dentures or spaces out for 10 minutes watching the squirrels outside her window. You certainly wouldn't want to pay her hourly for that and as long as she's happy with $x per bag everyone else is happy too. She isn't however an independent contractor.

Surely everyone can see the difference between the scenario above where granny figures out at the end of the month she made $3 per hour (and is happy) as compared sweatshops where people are forced to work in a production atmosphere 12 hrs per day in a factory or why trying to ensure granny makes minimum wage would be impossible.

Granny probably knits for a few minutes, then chats with aunt Linda down the hall, then knits for 1/2hr, then has to take her pills, then knits for 15 minutes ( 10 of which are spent remembering where she left off).

How could you possibly track her time?

Thanks, helpful post that made me understand the system used a lot better and I generally agree with all your points.

I obviously agree that certain types of work are better if you don't pay an hourly rate but a rate "per piece" or whatever. I also agree that when you use "per piece" remuneration that you can't ever figure out or predict what someone's effectively hourly rate is and that it also isn't your responsibility. It is obv also fine if some of your employees earn less than minimum wage, for the reasons you mentioned.

But certainly it opens the door to abuse if there is no further regulation on the matter and if companies are entirely free to set the rate "per piece". Let me illustrate my thoughts with an example:

Company A and B both employ stay at home moms to sew products, remuneration is paid a piece. They are both active in a market where the minimum hourly wage is at $10.

Company A offers $10 a piece. The average worker earns an hourly rate of $3 and the top 10% earns an hourly rate of $5.

Company B offers $35 a piece. The average worker earns an hourly rate of $10 and the top 10% earns $17,5

The example is simply to illustrate that in my opinion it is clear that "Company A" is exploiting its workforce while "Company B" clearly is not.

Is there no mechanism or law in place that would prohibit "Company A" types of contracts? I understand that it would be very difficult to determine what a fair rate is and what is not, but it must be possible to determine a very unfair/exploitative rate imo (like the example I just provided).

I am fairly certain that no person could get higher than $4/hour under the contract details we heard on the Shark Tank ($17/piece). Regardless of how much the old people eventually make as an hourly rate, a contract with characteristics like that (=meaning that no one could ever come close to earning minimum wage under the contract) in my opinion clearly is wrong and should be legally forbidden.

The argument "they can just refuse the work if they don't agree" is an understandable argument but you can use the same argument for hourly rates as well, and there is regulation on minimum hourly wage in most developped countries.

Paying them by the piece is not an issue and the $17 per piece was edited into the show, but obviously the pay differentiates by the size of the bag being produced so it's tough to gauge their hourly and will vary per individual. Paying someone as an employee does not necessarily mean you have to pay them by the hour, so a non-hourly job isn't an auto contractor situation.

Also, they simply sew the shell of the bag together basically and there are other manufacturing costs, and processes to get the finalized bag. I'm not familiar with sewing but I would imagine its not that difficult or time consuming for someone who knows what they are doing to sew the shell portion of those clutch and small bags which are likely the base pay of $17.

I think it's a pretty smart use of labor for the current size of her company, but clearly a room full of people using machines at a low hourly would likely be needed to scale it and would reduce costs as she increases volume of sales.

The luggage was really interesting. I think a lot of companies will have to step their game up now. Having my suitcase charge my phone would be killer.

Ditto, travel about half the year/take 55+ flights a year and I am definitely ordering that bag.

Ah crap I forgot to charge my suitcase

How is this suitcase charging idea any different than buying one of the plethora of batteries that you can buy with USB ports on them for charging? I don't understand the appeal.

Why wouldn't you want it in your suitcase?! It takes up extra space and weight and is totally non-portable. It's pretty much as awesome as having a car phone instead of a cell phone. No idea why those aren't still around.

I think the target market for that is actually people who don't realize that portable USB batteries exist.

I also don't get why carry-ons need GPS tracking or the self-weighing feature. Do some airlines weigh carry-ons? Never seen this before.

it's not super common but it definitely happens. it's rare in the US but i wish they'd do it more.

On the other hand, having an external connection for your USB battery while it sits inside your carryon is pretty handy. If it's well designed it's a decent feature. There's just no reason to include a ****ty 10,400 mAh battery and claim it does 8 iPhone charges.

I thought the luggage bag sounded stupid at first but after seeing the design, I want a couple.

The charging, the sliding door, and minimalist design really do solve a lot of problems. My big issue is I don't see suit hangers.

yo season 4 episode 5 is AMAZING!

The sharks bantering back and forth, loved it. that is what each episode should try to do. Love it when they get on each other

loved the abs pancakes bit, robert is such a d*ck its unbelievable, just loved it when they screwed him

I found this amazon seller named "AsSeenOnTank", the only reason I noticed them is because they had inventory in stock at FBA for the Abs Protein Pancakes at airtime(which takes 3-14 day leadtime). So obviously whoever runs this account has inside knowledge, whether it be a person or a company. I estimate they've had 13,000 orders in the past 12 months which is not very impressive. Maybe it's a cameraman or maybe one of the sharks.

Here is their storefront: http://www.amazon.com/sp?_encoding=U...b=&vasStoreID=

Kevin is good for this show cos he says lines like "I know hair", setting some other shark perfectly for punchline. Also he makes offers pretty often so he's okay in my book.

Also what I thought from last show is that two of the pitches were really bad, I mean the people behind them were just really incompetent. The hair product and the last woman. Baffles my mind how both of them got offers.