Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) · California

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse

Roseville, CA · ~423 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.2
Avg TCR
3.4
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse runs at 124% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) workplace, earning a grade D.

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse: 4.2 TCR = 124% of Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) BLS 3.4 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse safety composite

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 78% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

C

64/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 4.23 per 100 workers

Safer than 60% of industry peers

DART rate
B 1.48 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−0.8

2017→2022

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse injury rate improved

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse's TCR fell 0.8 from 3.4 in 2017 to 2.7 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2018 at 5.8 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0.35× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=3.4 · 2018=5.8 · 2019=3.5 · 2020=4.4 · 2021=5.6 · 2022=2.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 455211 · Roseville, CA ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 4.2 · 124% of ind

  • DART 1.5 DART
  • RANK #34/156
  • PHOTO 25320150 CONYERS, GA
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 80 inj
  • SIZE ~423 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: 25320150 CONYERS, GA (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · California employers → · Look up another →

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows 0029 - Roseville Ca Whse averages 4.2 TCR (124% of the Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse TCR series: 2017=3.4 · 2018=5.8 · 2019=3.5 · 2020=4.4 · 2021=5.6 · 2022=2.7 · BLS 3.4

Where 0029 - Roseville Ca Whse falls in its industry

1,491 Warehouse clubs (i.e., food an establishments

Safer than 60% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #34 safest of 156 Warehouse clubs (i.e., food an employers in California.

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse (423 employees, TCR 4.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 260 employees and a TCR of 4.8 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 100200300400500600 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate 0029 - Roseville Ca Whse
0029 - Roseville Ca Whse (423 employees, TCR 4.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 260 employees and a TCR of 4.8

0029 - Roseville Ca Whse has more employees than the Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.8. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2022 2.7 1.5 9 0 0
2021 5.6 5.3 18 0 0
2020 4.4 4.4 14 0 0
2019 3.5 3.5 11 0 0
2018 5.8 5.8 18 0 0
2017 3.4 3.4 10 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

455211 · CA · Roseville

1,491 Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 311 employers in Roseville, CA · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR 25320150 CONYERS, GA 4.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR 701-00464 4.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR 0328 - CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP PA WHS 4.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR 0142 - MERCED CA WHSE 4.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Fruity Ag, Inc. 423 FTE
STATE-SIZE HCI Systems Inc 423 FTE
STATE-SIZE Phillips Medisize Costa Mesa 423 FTE
STATE-SIZE Meggitt Engine Systems 423 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2032-02121801 4,395 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sutter Valley Hospitals (30003) 4,383 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0206-02621801 3,172 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sutter Roseville Medical Center (110-5001) 3,162 FTE
NAT-TCR Marriott at the University of Dayton 4.2 TCR
NAT-TCR O'Steen Brothers, Inc. 4.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Breck School * 4.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Sodexo at Lakewood Ranch Medical Center 4.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE OpusCare of South Florida 423 FTE
NAT-SIZE Pyro Shows, Inc. 423 FTE
NAT-SIZE Northport Home Agents 423 FTE
NAT-SIZE Headquarters 423 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.