Semantics question: Can "grandfathered in" also refer to a disadvantage in having old rules apply?
Was at Citibank today. About 18 months ago, I was informed by Citibank that my "free" checking account was going to have a minimum balance requirement of $6000 instead of $1500, which really sucked. If I did not meet that minimum balance, I would be charged a $15 monthly fee. Not wanting to close my account (since it's useful having a Citi account), I deposited a bit more money to take my balance over $6k.
Today I was in the bank for an unrelated reason, and asked if the requirement was still $6000. The clueless teller snap-told me it was $1500, but I didn't believe her. She checked into it, and her manager told me $12,000, which was also untrue, as I had far less than $12,000 and hadn't been charged any fees.
Finally they looked it up, and told me the following:
"You have an old version of our checking account that had a $6000 minimum balance requirement to avoid fees. We don't have that checking account anymore, but you are being grandfathered in, so you might want to leave it alone."
I asked, "Yeah, but perhaps it's a bad grandfathering. Maybe your new version has a lesser minimum balance requirement?"
She snapped back at me, "Grandfathering in always means it's good."
Not wanting to get into a debate about this, I had her look up whether the current checking account being offered was better or worse than that. Indeed, I was right. The new checking account type only requires $1500 minimum, and has everything else the same as my old one. Obviously I switched.
The question: Does the term "grandfathered in" apply to disadvantageous rule carryovers like this one, or only to advantageous ones?
I think it applies to both. The term simply means that exceptions to the current rules are being made because you signed up on different terms, but not necessarily that these are favorable exceptions.
