In the case of government jobs, I would argue that the cost of the job almost always outweighs the value of the work completed. Like a vast majority of cases. This means government jobs are by their nature inefficient. Sometimes that's a necessary evil, because in some cases the alternative is that it wouldn't get done at all, but for a confluence of reasons it needs to get done.
And when it comes to "right to be handed a job to do" notions, it's an order of magnitude worse in that regard, because the process goes like this: Step 1) hire unemployed people... Step 2) figure out something for them to do. To do what work is an afterthought. The primary goal of right-to-a-job advocates is to stuff money into unemployed people's pockets, and the secondary goal is to get some sort of use out of them while we're at it. This is far from efficient. Efficient means you identify what actual work needs to be done and then you strategize to meet the need in the optimal way.
I could not possibly disagree more with the idea that our federal government should be the employer of last resort. It is straight out of a dystopian sci-fi story, except that people increasingly seem to want it.