Said differently, if I'd offer you six bucks at dinner time to give up cooking and work for me and you'd say no, then your time must be worth at least six dollars, or $1/min, otherwise you'd have done it.
Since it's a nice, clean, hypothetical we get to ignore things like the silliness of working for only 6 minutes, or the time it takes to leave your kitchen.
How you actually get paid is irrelevant, the question is 'How much would you have to pay me right now to stop doing this and work.' That's the value of your time, because in an open economy, you could go work instead (subject to the caveats above). =)
Usually the question is asked in terms of what work you'd get paid most doing (which is often work you enjoy). Even If I get paid $10MM/yr in one lump sum from a trust fund, the value of my time per minute is still however much money I'd take in lieu of my time, or, in economic parlance, the 'second best alternative'.
Just because you can't practically bill for a fraction of your time doesn't make it value-less. That's a common fallacy, and (imho) a wasteful way to look at life.
In this case, I'd argue that in light of what you said above that I would have to pay you a LOT to get you to quit cooking and go do work, so the value of that chunk of time is actually quite high.