HR 11 is a piece of legislation that assumes employers are guilty of discrimination in pay unless the employer can prove their innocence, not exactly what we used to call the American policy of innocence until proven guilty, but what the hey, we've given ground on that anywhere we can classify someone as a Victimized group, legitimatly or otherwise.
HR 11 also removes the statute of limitations on pay discrimination claims, even allowing retirees to claim they were discriminated against long after their employers have died or have closed up shop themselves.  
HR 11 also creates fertile ground for scrupulous attorneys to milk not only those employers who long ago terminated employment with these individuals (many retiring from these employers with no history of problems), but also will allow those same attorneys to milk the alleged victims for a greater share of the rewards they know many of these employers will pay just to settle the frivolous claims.

I guess you know my feelings about the greater lot of attorneys, now lets look at the real crux of HR 11 and HR 12 (and needless to say expected bills from Ingham County Legislators Meadows, Byrum, Bauer, and Whitmer,  several have previously trumpeted their support and sponsorship of such bills)

HR 11, HR 12, and most "Equal Pay" bills presume that there is in fact a pay equity problem , and more specifically act as though any such pay equity that exists is the result of bias by employers.  This, as they say, is far from the truth.

The Pay equity myth comes from studies done decades ago, and many of the same stats used then still get bandied about as though nothing has changed, and no doubt will still be proclaimed in 2020, even if all of the pay equity bills take effect.
Numerous studies more recent than those NOW tosses around show a much smaller pay gap than cited, but even more important they provide very valid, and understandable reasons that the remaining differences (not bias) do exist, issues like mothers taking years off work to raise kids (I'm sure more than a few dads would like to see that bias removed), Mothers who need to take time off work repeatedly for childrens doctor and child-care issues (again many men would love to swap time with their kids for pay).

More importantly, many of the higher paying jobs in blue collar America are the result of less than desirable working conditions (Long overtime, Lengthy Travel, Hazardous working conditions and the like)

Where have the Paycheck equity folks ever done a true comparison of apples to apples?  I know the State pays female secretaries the same as they pay male Secretaries, GM and Ford, they pay Line workers the same without regard to gender, check any Major Trucking company and you will find wage scales spelled out with no hint of gender bias.

We cannot even simply say Women truck driver get paid less than men on average, we have to look in depth, how many women refuse to take Long-Haul driving work sue to the time away from family (I know several father who do in order to provide for their family, not an ideal scenario, but it puts bread on the table and a roof over the families head.

Lets look at construction.
When bob the builder is hiring, is there any signs of pay inequity? possibly, but when you compare all rough carpenters, you don't see the gap, when you compare plumbers no difference, electricians,.... right down the line, again we see women carefully avoiding the riskiest construction jobs, Jobs like Iron workers doing high-rises and bridges.  where there's a higher risk of death an d injury, women shy away from the work, but when they don't, they get paid the same, in fact in some occupations wage studies have shown that women are paid a premium by employers who want to draw women in and show a higher level of political correctness (sort of ironic that "Pay inequity" equals politically correct.

Every conservative in Michigan should be calling Senators Stabenow and Levin, and telling them that HR11, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is bad legislation that improperly punishes employers for a non-existent bias in pay, and urge then to acknowledge the reality that women and men should be paid equally, only when they are performing equal work.