Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing · New Jersey

ID Technology-Oakland

Oakland, NJ · ~23 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.8
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

ID Technology-Oakland runs at 114% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing workplace, earning a grade C.

ID Technology-Oakland: 3.8 TCR = 114% of Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

ID Technology-Oakland safety composite

ID Technology-Oakland scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 77% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 27%), 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).

D

51/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 3.77 per 100 workers

Safer than 27% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 77% 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

−5.2

2016→2024

ID Technology-Oakland injury rate improved

ID Technology-Oakland's TCR fell 5.2 from 5.2 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2021 at 10.4 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=5.2 · 2017=4.8 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=4.1 · 2020=4.8 · 2021=10.4 · 2022=4.6 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 333993 · Oakland, NJ ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.8 · 114% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #5/7
  • PHOTO BEVCORP FCI
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 7 inj
  • SIZE ~23 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: BEVCORP FCI (0.0 TCR gap)

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

ID Technology-Oakland in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows ID Technology-Oakland averages 3.8 TCR (114% of the Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

ID Technology-Oakland TCR series: 2016=5.2 · 2017=4.8 · 2018=0 · 2019=4.1 · 2020=4.8 · 2021=10.4 · 2022=4.6 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 3.3

Where ID Technology-Oakland falls in its industry

269 Labeling (i.e., packaging) mac establishments

Safer than 27% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New Jersey alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #5 safest of 7 Labeling (i.e., packaging) mac employers in New Jersey.

ID Technology-Oakland (23 employees, TCR 3.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 2.4 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 0200400600800 02468 Average employees Total Case Rate ID Technology-Oakland
ID Technology-Oakland (23 employees, TCR 3.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 2.4

ID Technology-Oakland has fewer employees than the Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery man median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.4. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 4.6 4.6 1 0 0
2021 10.4 0.0 2 0 0
2020 4.8 4.8 1 0 0
2019 4.1 4.1 1 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 4.8 4.8 1 0 0
2016 5.2 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

333993 · NJ · Oakland

269 Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 11,201 rated employers in New Jersey with headcount on file · 19 employers in Oakland, NJ · 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 BEVCORP FCI 3.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR CRG Automation 3.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Tamarack Products 3.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR IDT-Fresno 3.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE NAES : Newark Energy Center 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE Newark Energy Center 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE Coli Construction, Inc. 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE Skyline Solar Hamilton, NJ Office 23 FTE
CITY-NEAR 40 Potash Rd 284 FTE
CITY-NEAR ShopRite of Long Hill Plaza 216 FTE
CITY-NEAR Oakland operator LLC 213 FTE
CITY-NEAR Oakland 97 FTE
NAT-TCR Renfro Mount Airy Distribution Center 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR The Fresh Market 007 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR TriGreen Equipment Hendersonville 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR TriGreen Equipment Scottsboro 3.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Stribling Equipment - Tupelo 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE Stribling Equipment - Texarkana 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE Aurora Office and Service Center 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE Schmitt & Company 23 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, 2020, 2019, 2018, 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.