Copper products made by rolling, drawing, or extruding purchased copper · Connecticut

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford

Guilford, CT · ~68 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.2
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford runs at 126% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Copper products made by rolling, drawing, or extruding purchased copper workplace, earning a grade D.

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford: 4.2 TCR = 126% of Copper products made by rolling, drawing, or extruding purchased copper BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford safety composite

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 42%), 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

45/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 4.15 per 100 workers

Safer than 44% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.5 per 100 workers

Safer than 42% 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

−3.0

2021→2024

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford injury rate improved

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford's TCR fell 3.0 from 5.5 in 2021 to 2.5 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 6.3 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.6× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2021=5.5 · 2022=6.3 · 2023=2.3 · 2024=2.5

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 331420 · Guilford, CT ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 4.2 · 126% of ind

  • DART 2.5 DART
  • RANK #2/5
  • PHOTO Viakable Manufacturi…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 11 inj
  • SIZE ~68 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Viakable Manufacturing LLC (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Rea Magnet Wire Guilford averages 4.2 TCR (126% of the Copper products made by rolling, drawing, or extruding purchased copper BLS benchmark).

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

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford TCR series: 2021=5.5 · 2022=6.3 · 2023=2.3 · 2024=2.5 · BLS 3.3

Where Rea Magnet Wire Guilford falls in its industry

198 Copper products made by rollin establishments

Safer than 44% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Connecticut alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 5 Copper products made by rollin employers in Connecticut.

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford (68 employees, TCR 4.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 3.7 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 0200400600 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Rea Magnet Wire Guilford
Rea Magnet Wire Guilford (68 employees, TCR 4.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 3.7

Rea Magnet Wire Guilford has fewer employees than the Copper products made by rolling, drawing median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.7. 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 2.5 2.5 2 0 0
2023 2.3 2.3 2 0 0
2022 6.3 3.8 5 0 0
2021 5.5 2.8 2 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

331420 · CT · Guilford

198 Copper products made by rolling, drawing, or extruding purchased copper employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,008 rated employers in Connecticut with headcount on file · 41 employers in Guilford, CT · 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 Viakable Manufacturing LLC 4.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Carrollton Copper Rod Mill 4.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR International Wire - Williamstown 4.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Boonville Facility 4.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE Pat Munger Construction Co. Inc. 68 FTE
STATE-SIZE Mizzy Construction, Inc. 68 FTE
STATE-SIZE Earthlight Technologies LLC 68 FTE
STATE-SIZE Industrial Palllet LLC 68 FTE
CITY-NEAR VNACHC Guilford 331 FTE
CITY-NEAR Home Care Plus, Inc. - Guilford 292 FTE
CITY-NEAR Brook & Whittle, Ltd. - Guilford 207 FTE
CITY-NEAR B W Bishop & Sons Inc 140 FTE
NAT-TCR Norton Museum of Art 4.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Cajun Senior Nutrition 4.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Warner Robins Project 4.2 TCR
NAT-TCR DeCook Contracting, Inc. 4.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Michigan Caterpillar Saginaw 68 FTE
NAT-SIZE atHome 68 FTE
NAT-SIZE DuPage Children's Museum 68 FTE
NAT-SIZE McCarthy Tire Service #23 68 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.