Telecommunications carriers, wired · Indiana

Rochester Telephone Company

Rochester, IN · ~50 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
2.5
Avg TCR
0.7
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Rochester Telephone Company runs at 356% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Telecommunications carriers, wired workplace, earning a grade F.

Rochester Telephone Company: 2.5 TCR = 356% of Telecommunications carriers, wired BLS 0.7 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Rochester Telephone Company safety composite

Rochester Telephone Company scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 15%), 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).

F

32/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 2.49 per 100 workers

Safer than 36% of industry peers

DART rate
F 3.72 per 100 workers

Safer than 15% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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

−4647.4

2016→2024

Rochester Telephone Company injury rate improved

Rochester Telephone Company's TCR fell 4647.4 from 4651.2 in 2016 to 3.7 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2016 at 4651.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 1.49× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=4651.2 · 2017=2.2 · 2018=2.2 · 2019=0.6 · 2020=4.6 · 2022=4.1 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=3.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 517110 · Rochester, IN ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 2.5 · 356% of ind

  • DART 3.7 DART
  • RANK #5/6
  • PHOTO Great Plains Communi…
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 14 inj
  • SIZE ~50 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Great Plains Communications (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Rochester Telephone Company in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Rochester Telephone Company averages 2.5 TCR (356% of the Telecommunications carriers, wired BLS benchmark).

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

Rochester Telephone Company TCR series: 2016=4651.2 · 2017=2.2 · 2018=2.2 · 2019=0.6 · 2020=4.6 · 2022=4.1 · 2023=0 · 2024=3.7 · BLS 0.7

Where Rochester Telephone Company falls in its industry

537 Telecommunications carriers, w establishments

Safer than 36% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Indiana alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #5 safest of 6 Telecommunications carriers, w employers in Indiana.

Rochester Telephone Company (50 employees, TCR 2.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 276 employees and a TCR of 1.3 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 01,0002,0003,000 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Rochester Telephone Company
Rochester Telephone Company (50 employees, TCR 2.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 276 employees and a TCR of 1.3

Rochester Telephone Company has fewer employees than the Telecommunications carriers, wired median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.3. 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 3.7 3.7 2 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 4.1 0.0 2 0 0
2020 4.6 0.0 2 0 0
2019 0.6 0.3 4 0 0
2018 2.2 2.2 1 0 0
2017 2.2 2.2 1 0 0
2016 4651.2 4651.2 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

517110 · IN · Rochester

537 Telecommunications carriers, wired employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,750 rated employers in Indiana with headcount on file · 34 employers in Rochester, IN · 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 Great Plains Communications 2.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR 1101 Stewart Ave 2.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR CLARO / PRT - Penuelas CO 2.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pampa 2.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE The Sergio Corporation 50 FTE
STATE-SIZE Smock Fansler Corporation 50 FTE
STATE-SIZE MacDougall Pierce Construction 50 FTE
STATE-SIZE McCrite Milling 50 FTE
CITY-NEAR Woodlawn Hospital 424 FTE
CITY-NEAR Rochester Metal Products 318 FTE
CITY-NEAR Rochester Community School Corp 316 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lau- Rochester 204 FTE
NAT-TCR Bentwood Farms Inc. 2.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Hydro Commerce 2.5 TCR
NAT-TCR ERI Fresno, Suite 108 2.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Hancock Lumber Company 2.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE Joseph Castings 50 FTE
NAT-SIZE Boyd's Kinsman Home, Inc 50 FTE
NAT-SIZE Clean Uniform Company O'Fallon 50 FTE
NAT-SIZE SF - 890 Hayes St, SF 50 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, 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.