That's what offering someone an ultimatum is. "You either change your behavior or you stop working here." The encoded threat is that if you do not comply we will simply remove you.
It's somewhat mealy mouthed. "We didn't fire him. We just reached the penultimate step before having to fire him."
Depending on the circumstances, it could be construed as constructive dismissal. Creating unfavorable ultimatums allows companies to 'lay off' people without having to pay severance.
Well if the employer is suddenly requiring previously remote workers to come back to the office, they are in a sense firing them. Or perhaps more accurately "laying them off" because it isn't an individualized thing.
If your boss has to come to you and explain to you that you can't actually work two full time jobs at once, then yes, you were fired very politely.
If you understood the morals and knew enough to offer your resignation when you accepted the other job, then no, you just took a new job very ethically.
In the same mealy mouthed way, sure. Typically only doing the moral thing once prompted removes you from being described as "doing the moral thing."
The place to make the choice is when you accepted the new job. That you had to be prompted indicates that you are not the type of person who recognizes obvious conflicts, or you are and you hope that might be able to avoid responsibility for them by lying through omission.
The point is, as a "defense," this is absurdly hollow. I'm not sure PG did him any favors by clarifying this point.
It's somewhat mealy mouthed. "We didn't fire him. We just reached the penultimate step before having to fire him."