Rankings

How PlainWorker Rankings Are Compiled

Our rankings are computed directly from the upstream dataset — not editorially curated and not influenced by advertisers. Each ranking surfaces a clear, reproducible metric (for example, count of records per jurisdiction, share of records within a category, or rate per capita), and the underlying numbers are visible on the associated record pages so you can verify them. We recompute rankings whenever the upstream data refreshes, and we publish the refresh cadence on the methodology page.

What Rankings Mean (and What They Do Not)

A ranking is a useful lens — it tells you where to start looking — but it is not a judgment about quality, safety, or reputation. Being at the top of a count-based ranking typically reflects scale: more records in a jurisdiction, more entities in a category. It does not mean "better" or "worse." Whenever a ranking could be misread as a quality claim, we include an explanatory note on the page. When a ranking is rate-based (per capita, per thousand, share), we describe the denominator so you can sanity-check whether the normalization fits your question.

Why We Publish These Rankings

Rankings make large public datasets navigable. Most visitors arrive with a question ("Which jurisdiction has the most records?" or "Where is this category concentrated?") and benefit from seeing a ranked list with direct links to the full records. Publishing ranked views of public data is a long-established practice in civic journalism; we are careful to surface the raw numbers, link to the official source, and avoid editorial spin. If a ranking ever implies a value judgment not supported by the data, please email us at the address on the contact page and we will review the wording.

Methodology, Sources, and Corrections

Every ranking is derived from the source dataset linked on the methodology page. We do not blend proprietary signals; we do not substitute editor opinion for data. If you believe a ranking is miscomputed or that a record is misclassified, please contact us with the specific record ID and the expected correction, and we will investigate within the next refresh cycle. Corrections that affect the published ranking are rolled forward immediately; minor formatting fixes go out with the next scheduled refresh.

How To Use The OSHA And WHD Rankings

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) enforcement records and Wage and Hour Division (WHD) back-wage cases each surface a different kind of workplace risk. OSHA records track physical safety hazards — falls, machine guarding, respiratory exposure, lockout-tagout, electrical, and recordkeeping. WHD cases track wage theft, overtime violations, misclassification, child-labor breaches, and other Fair Labor Standards Act issues. The rankings above let you compare jurisdictions, industries, and individual employers across both lenses. When an employer appears in both an OSHA penalty ranking and a WHD back-wage ranking, the combination is meaningful: it suggests systemic compliance gaps rather than a single isolated incident. Conversely, a single citation in either dataset is common across large workforces and should not be read as a definitive judgment.

The penalty figures used in our rankings reflect current penalties after employer-OSHA settlement negotiations, not initial proposed penalties. Initial penalty amounts are frequently reduced through informal settlements, abatement agreements, or administrative law judge decisions, sometimes by 50% or more for first-time non-willful violations. Where we publish both initial and current values, the current value is the legally binding amount the employer ultimately paid (or contested). For WHD back wages, the published figure is the amount the agency determined was owed to affected workers under the settlement — it does not include civil money penalties assessed against the employer, which appear separately in the case record.

Industry And Jurisdiction Coverage

The underlying datasets cover all U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and selected territories. Industry classifications follow the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) at the six-digit level, which provides granular categorization across construction, manufacturing, healthcare, retail, food service, transportation, and professional services. Federal OSHA jurisdiction covers about 27 states and territories directly; the remaining states operate OSHA-approved State Plans that may differ in standards adopted, penalty structures, and enforcement priority. Where State Plans publish data through the federal Integrated Management Information System, those records appear in the rankings; where they do not, the ranking should be read as federal-OSHA-jurisdiction-only for that state.

Combining Multiple Rankings

Most policy questions are not answered by a single ranking. A reader asking "which employer in my state poses the highest combined safety-and-wage risk?" needs to consult both the OSHA penalty ranking and the WHD back-wage ranking, then look at the overlap. A reader asking "which industries should regulators focus on?" needs to cross-reference the most-dangerous-industries view with the WHD-by-industry view. The rankings hub is intentionally a navigation page rather than a single composite score: composite scores hide the underlying signal mix, and different audiences need different weightings. Workers picking a job want to know about repeat-violator status. Investigative reporters want to see willful-violation rate. Plaintiffs' attorneys want documented back-wage exposure. Public-health researchers want per-inspection penalty averages by NAICS code. The same underlying data answers all of those questions, but only if each ranking remains uncombined and reproducible.