Posted this in another thread before seeing this one.
It's an interesting article, though it does seem to be a bit one sided!
I should point out before I continue, I no longer work for the DWP, so I'm not saying this because I have to.
I think this is a case of office managers taking the new "sanction rules" a bit too far. My manager told us we had to get one sanction a month. That was the aim. I've heard in other offices nearby that they had a target of one a week. It was never forced on us though, if we couldn't find reason to sanction someone, we didn't have to make up a reason or trick them, we simply didn't meet our target due to everyone we signed following the rules.
In the case of that article, 3 a week is an impossible target to be honest. It sounds like a manager being told they have to increase sanctions (which all managers were) but then deciding that 3 a week was the number they needed to do that.
As for sanctioning for being late, that's not entirely accurate either. Yes Jobcentres can sanction you a weeks money for not turning up on the right day without a valid reason (doctors appointment, job interview etc).
The story about the dyslexic customer is ridiculous, there's no requirement for a written job search record. It's acceptable to take a verbal one. The idea of sanctioning someone for not writing down their job search activities is insane and anyone who has been sanctioned for that should ask for a reconsideration.
I also question why the employee in that article is doing it if he doesn't agree with it. I didn't always agree with sanctioning people and often let people who had followed the rules but had missed one job off. I wasn't prepared to stop someone's money because of a technicality, and if the guy in the article really cared so much, he'd ignore the target like I did and only sanction when it was ACTUALLY necessary.
Basically this article is based on one p*ssed off employee and people who have been sanctioned - of course they're going to be angry. What none of them seem to realise is the rules for sanctioning haven't changed, staff are just being asked to enforce them more often. What was happening originally is staff couldn't be bothered to fill out all the paper work involved in it. It was only when sanctions were made a priority that we had to start doing it. Even then it was only one a month, and it's easy to find a real person who's not following the rules in that time.
EDIT
The video interview with the whistleblower is also misleading. He says that refusal of employment is being used when people don't apply...true, except the rules DO actually say that not applying is refusing employment. You're refusing to apply for a suitable job that you could get if you apply.
It should be noted that not actively seeking means they haven't done the bare minimum, which is 3 things a week. If someone can't do 3 things to look for a job in a 7 day period then they're clearly not actively seeking work.