Peter Linebaugh’s The London Hanged, a social history of 18th century London drawing on the records of those hanged at Tyburn, is very interesting on these. The cases he looks at are of apprentices rather than servants, but there’s a similarly blurred line between theft and rights. As Linebaugh describes it, there was a shift in the definition of what constituted theft by apprentices over the 18th century as more and more traditional income-supplementing ‘rights’ (eg to sell scraps of fabric if you worked for a weaver) became redefined as theft, and the practitioners dealt with via the criminal justice system.

The deal was that Kate paid for her keep and school costs and she did the basic cleaning of Kate’s two-room apartment on the end of the school building, ran errands, did whatever simple tasks she could.

Whether Omer’s ‘helpers’ or those working for families of various socio-economic strata, it is generally considered that these workers either should be given a monthly stipend in kind [e.g., beans and rice] or have access to some of the cuisine. Usually what is left over. Systems of patronage between servant/worker and employer continue to be important and food and local beer are key ingredients in keeping these systems working smoothly.

And it is always preferable to lock up ‘everything’ consumable. Often, in a small pantry or in some cupboards. As well, referigerators and freezers are generally sold with locks. Not a matter of ‘trust’ or ‘sticky fingers’ (as we might interpret) as much as a matter of items being considered a kind of ‘free game’ ! So, what we might intrepret as theft is actually part of a different kind of exchange system.

And as you point out, there are no items wasted. What is not eaten goes to the dogs; vegetable leaves and so forth may go to the livestock – and what’s left after that goes into the compost heap. Quite an environmentally friendly system, often with far stronger social expectations/links between employer-employee that in the West.