I'm not sure the point of this comment. Is it just for anecdotes sake? If not it sounds like you have a problem with the type of work being offered in this particular example. Not the concept. One (arguably) bad example doesn't make an entire concept void.
If you tie benefits to work for moral reasons, but have no real work for them to do, then you'll just end up with pointless labor. Consider many people on welfare are not very employable anyways, their labor is not valuable or in demand. That is why they need welfare in the first place!
The British Victorians solved this problem with treadmills. But eventually this archaic thinking was replaced with more enlightened solutions to poverty.
