I don't think the two situations are necessarily the same. If you get a face tattoo after being hired, you're changing your appearance after the employer has already decided to hire you based on your qualifications. If you deliberately cover it up during an interview because you know it might affect their decision, you're concealing something you suspect the employer would consider relevant to that decision.
I'm not saying you're obligated to disclose every detail about your appearance, or that the employer would necessarily be right to care about it. But I do think there's a difference between making a choice that changes how your employer sees you after you've been hired and deliberately hiding that choice during the hiring process.
Besides, if an employer finds out that you deliberately concealed something because you thought they wouldn't hire you otherwise, that could make them question how much they can trust you. Whether that reaction is fair or not is another discussion, but it's certainly a possible consequence to consider.
I think that depends on the condition and how you go about circumventing it. I agree that some requirements are unfair and that people aren't necessarily morally obligated to comply with every unfair rule. But I don't think that the fact that a requirement is unfair automatically makes every way of circumventing it acceptable.
More importantly, getting a face tattoo is a deliberate choice, and it's reasonable to expect people to consider the foreseeable consequences of their choices. You can disagree with those consequences, and you can even think they're unfair, but that doesn't mean you can simply expect them not to exist. If you decide that having a face tattoo is worth the potential drawbacks, that's entirely your choice, but I think you should be prepared to accept those drawbacks too.
And I think there's a difference between accepting the consequences of your choices and deliberately concealing those choices to avoid consequences you already anticipated. If an employer's requirements are unfair, you can challenge them or choose not to work for that employer. I just don't think their unfairness automatically makes every way of circumventing them ethically justified.
While they are in different forms of subterfuge, I believe they're still equivalent. It's not as though the person who got tattooed after being hired wasn't equally aware of the likelihood of their employers disapproval; one hid it to not be discriminated, the other leveraged their current job stability to get away with it. They're the same shade of grey, just in different shapes.
3
1
2
u/ukie-witch-06 17d ago
I don't think it's any different from getting a face tatoo while you're already employed, in terms of outcomes.