No, they should not get money for useless job.
Everyone should get money for nothing. From the moral point, that people should be able to live in dignity. I do not know where the concept really started, but one of the people trying to get this is from germany and there the first paragraph of the constitution holds a argument, which says
(1) Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German People therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every human community, of peace, and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights are binding on legislature, executive, and judiciary as directly valid law.
Then the argument goes, that the state should give everyone the right, independed from if they can get a job and even from if they want one. So like having enough for a life in dignity (lets say 1000 eur, which is more than double of the lowest unemployment benefit) and people who want more or just need something to do should strive to get a normal job, which adds to this unconditional amount.
While the big boss will not notice the difference of a "small" added sum, the unemployed has a big advantage. So you can says, the advantage scales with the rest from your position, the less you get otherwise, the bigger is the benefit from the UBI. Sounds like it's useful that way.
> One has no moral right to the fruits of others' labor—including the automated labor of their machines.
The state gives you the right and the state pays for it. The state gets the money by letting the owners of the machines pay for getting money for nothing, i.e. by higher taxes.
If you want moral, then use moral to tell why people doing nothing but having machines should live in luxus while people wanting to work do not get work (or crappy jobs) and have no money left in the end of the month, despite of hard work.