Can a categorical imperative still be binding if what brought about the situation for the CI was due to another CI situation being violated?

So let us say the following is an application of the CI:
1.) One must work hard, because if one does not work hard was universalized, no one would work hard and living itself would be difficult. One cannot judge without being alive, thus a contradiction (of sorts).

2) Alternatively another application of the CI might be
One must work hard, because owners of companies are paying you to live and it would be unfair to the owner paying you. Fairness itself would be violated, thus a contradiction (of sorts).

However, in order for these to come into play, someone had to violate the force of putting someone into existence in the first place.. Thus, in order to get those two CIs, you need to violate this one:

3) One should always be consented for weighty matters of life and death otherwise, anyone can do something on someone's behalf because they simply desire it. If everyone acted this way, people would be constantly used (a violation of 1st and 2nd formulations of CI.. 1st because of contradiction of no consent and 2nd because of using people).

or

4) One should never undeservedly be forced into an arrangement (whereby one must work hard to live, let's say) whereby they cannot get out of that arrangement without significant harm, otherwise the fairness of forcing someone into a bind that they may not like would be acceptable. Freedom itself would be violated and cause a contradiction (1st and 2nd formulation violations).

So are the first two binding if brought about due to violations of 3 and 4? In other words, why should CIs be binding on people who were put in situations where CIs were broken to get them in that situation? That itself seems like a violation of fairness, freedom, justice and the CI.

tl;dr: If the old adage is true that "Life just isn't fair", then why life in the first place (ethically speaking)?
OR, how can something be considered a binding ethical rule if that itself came about by breaking that very same principle that makes it binding in the first place?