Hoisting and placement of large-scale apparatus · North Carolina

Guy M. Turner, Inc.

Greensboro, NC · ~280 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.9
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Guy M. Turner, Inc. runs at 32% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Hoisting and placement of large-scale apparatus workplace, earning a grade A.

Guy M. Turner, Inc.: 0.9 TCR = 32% of Hoisting and placement of large-scale apparatus BLS 2.8 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Guy M. Turner, Inc. safety composite

Guy M. Turner, Inc. scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 82% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 47%), 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

62/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 0.89 per 100 workers

Safer than 82% of industry peers

DART rate
D 0.57 per 100 workers

Safer than 47% 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%).

Guy M. Turner, Inc. held a steady TCR band

Guy M. Turner, Inc.'s TCR held near 0.2 from 0.8 in 2016 to 0.6 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2019 at 1.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.64× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=0.8 · 2017=1.1 · 2019=1.2 · 2021=0.8 · 2022=0.9 · 2023=0.9 · 2024=0.6

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 238290 · Greensboro, NC AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.9 · 32% of ind

  • DART 0.6 DART
  • RANK #3/35
  • PHOTO Mitsubishi Electric …
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 22 inj
  • SIZE ~280 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Mitsubishi Electric US Inc.-10 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Guy M. Turner, Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Guy M. Turner, Inc. averages 0.9 TCR (32% of the Hoisting and placement of large-scale apparatus BLS benchmark).

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

Guy M. Turner, Inc. TCR series: 2016=0.8 · 2017=1.1 · 2019=1.2 · 2021=0.8 · 2022=0.9 · 2023=0.9 · 2024=0.6 · BLS 2.8

Where Guy M. Turner, Inc. falls in its industry

1,138 Hoisting and placement of larg establishments

Safer than 82% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 35 Hoisting and placement of larg employers in North Carolina.

Guy M. Turner, Inc. (280 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 2.0 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 05001,0001,500 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Guy M. Turner, Inc.
Guy M. Turner, Inc. (280 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 2.0

Guy M. Turner, Inc. has more employees than the Hoisting and placement of large-scale ap median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.0. 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
2024 0.6 0.6 2 0 0
2023 0.9 0.9 3 0 0
2022 0.9 0.9 3 0 0
2021 0.8 0.8 3 0 0
2019 1.2 0.9 4 0 0
2017 1.1 0.8 4 0 0
2016 0.8 0.5 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

238290 · NC · Greensboro

1,138 Hoisting and placement of large-scale apparatus employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 920 employers in Greensboro, NC · 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 Mitsubishi Electric US Inc.-10 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Control Technology & Solutions 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Otis Elevator Company-NAES Boston 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Overhead Door Co of Norwich, Incorporated 0.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Schaefer Systems International, Inc. 280 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bowman Gray Technical Center - Research and Development 280 FTE
STATE-SIZE UPM Raflatac Mills River 280 FTE
STATE-SIZE Amesbury Group Inc. 280 FTE
CITY-NEAR MHCMH-Cone-Moses H Cone Memorial Hospital 3,806 FTE
CITY-NEAR Guilford County Local Government - All Employees 3,270 FTE
CITY-NEAR Guilford County Local Government 3,194 FTE
CITY-NEAR NCGRE - GREENSBORO HUB 2,447 FTE
NAT-TCR Ace Mart Restaurant Supply 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Storeroom Operations Center 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR New Jersey American Water - Howell Field Ops 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Garden Way 0.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Cabinetworks Group 280 FTE
NAT-SIZE Amherst 280 FTE
NAT-SIZE 194 - DET Nashville 280 FTE
NAT-SIZE Haynes Family of Programs 280 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: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2019, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.