The Pullman Strike and The Anthracite Coal Strike

 The ability for Labor to strike has been regarded as a powerful tool for many labor unions and American workforces to put pressure on Management to bring about change in working conditions and salaries. American workers have been involved in various strikes in different industries over the years. These strikes address many issues, such as manageable work hours, improved working conditions, better wages, and improved benefits. These early strikes have helped to shape laws and policies that affect Labor even today. Without the ability for Labor to strike, Labor would have no power to negotiate with Management.

This paper will develop a contrast between two historical strikes in the United States. The period following the civil war was marked by the increase in the hostility of Management towards Labor. Labor unions employed strikes, some of which were so disruptive that both state and federal troops were used to control the unrest. Some of the historical strikes are regarded as the biggest in history. Their numbers reached hundreds of thousands, and each brought a varying degree of success (Davis, 2020).

It is important to note that this trend started during the 1890s. It was represented characteristically by the Pullman strike of 1894 and the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902, which will be discussed in this paper. Both are regarded as crucial in the history of the United States.

The Pullman Strike of 1894

The Pullman Strike was a major railroad strike and boycott that disrupted rail traffic in the Midwestern United States in June and July of 1894. This was the first time that the federal government used an injunction to break a strike. Congress and President Grover Cleveland created Labor Day as a national holiday to recognize the labor movement.

During a nationwide recession in 1893, the Pullman Palace Car Company cut more than 2,000 workers and reduced wages by 25 percent. Prices and rent in the company town of Pullman, Illinois, were unchanged, and many families faced starvation. Some workers attempted to present their grievances to company president Georg M. Pullman, but instead, the workers were fired for their actions.

Workers at the Pullman factory walked off the job on May 11, 1894. Eventually, 125,000 to 250,000 railroad workers in 27 states joined their cause, disrupting rail traffic. The U.S. Attorney claiming that the strike violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, obtained an injunction, which allowed for federal troops to be dispatched. This led to an outbreak of deadly violence, but rail traffic did resume. (Pullman Strike, 2020)

The Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902

The Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902 began in May, and an estimated 147,000 workers walked out. The groundwork for the anthracite coal strike was laid by strikes in the bituminous or soft coalfields in 1897. John Mitchell became President of United Mine Workers in 1898 and hoped to achieve similar success in the anthracite or hard coalfields of Pennsylvania. Management of the coal operators were determined to reject all union offers and break the strike. Public opinion was against Coal Management and supported Labor for the first time.

On October 3, 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt called Both Labor and Management to a meeting in the white house. The President urged the two sides to come to some agreement so that the operation of the coal mines could resume so that the needs of the people could be met. This meeting marked a change in the U.S. Government from strikebreaker to peacemaker. In the past, the U.S. Government had sided with Management and called in federal troops to break up strikes.

Roosevelt described Mitchell as behaving with great dignity and moderation and the operators as showing extraordinary stupidity and bad temper. Management told President Roosevelt that he should use his powers to protect the men that wanted to work instead of wasting time negotiating with anarchists. Management rejected Roosevelts efforts to mediate and refused to acknowledge Mitchell. Roosevelt did not believe Labor was blameless, but he disagreed with Management's belief that there was nothing to discuss. Roosevelt felt that Management should be open to compromise.

The Governor of Pennsylvania ordered the State National Guard to the coalfields, and on the surface, it had appeared this was a win for Management. Unfortunately for Management, the miners remained on strike, and they were unable to meet the promise to mine enough coal to meet public demand. Even though Roosevelt did not hold Labor at fault, he appealed to John Mitchell that if the miners returned to work, he would appoint a new commission to investigate the coal industry. Mitchell considered the offer but rejected it based on experience and felt this would be a surrender.

Both sides agreed to arbitration, and finally, On October 23, 1902, the 163-day anthracite coal strike was over. President Roosevelt asked the commissioners to establish good relations between Management and Labor in the anthracite fields. The commissioners met for nearly three months, and five-hundred fifty-eight witnesses appeared with 10,047 legal-sized pages of testimony. John Mitchell played a large role in presenting the miners' case. George Baer made the closing arguments for the coal operators, and Clarence Darrow closed for the miners. Both sides agreed to the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission's findings, Making Roosevelts efforts to end the strike a success. A new role was established for the Federal Government in labor disputes. Roosevelt said that he spoke neither for Labor or Management that instead, he was looking out for the public interest. (Grossman, n.d.)

Differences In The Two Strikes

The first strike I am discussing is the Pullman strike, which took place in 1894 from May to July. About 250,000 employees of the factory at the Pullman Palace, a manufacturer of sleeper cars for the railroads, walked off the job in the Chicago United States. The employees decided to strike because employee wages were reduced to a drastic amount without corresponding company prices or rents. Thus, American Railway Union, which was led by Eugene Debbs, joined the strike in June, and the union issued a boycott of all the trains which were carrying the Pullman cars. The union negotiated with the railroads that if any railway Management refused to detach the Pullman cars, American Railway Union would be more likely to refuse to move the train (Shackel, 2018).

The Pullman strike drew national attention and was regarded as the Pullman's Boycott. The union and the strikers vigorously opposed Management. Here, the American Railway Union sought arbitration of the conflict, and Management refused any compromise. Even though the American Railway Union pioneered new tactics such as public relations and coordinated control of union still, Management, along with the federal government's help, tried to crush the Pullman strike and the American Railway Union (Aldrich, 2018).

The second strike, which is involved in the essay, was the great anthracite coal strike of 1902 when about 147,000 coal miners went on strike in Eastern Pennsylvania, who were also members of the United Mine Workers of America. The Anthracite coal strike was from May to October of 1902. It was feared by most of the people that the strike would affect a primary source of energy. The mineworkers intended to obtain better wages and improved working conditions (Fink & Palacio, 2017).

It came to happen that the President of the United Mine Workers John Mitchell led the strikers in their quest for the uniform payment with shorter hours, increased wages, and union recognition. The operators in that situation were bitterly antagonistic, but the opinion of the public, the federal government, and J.P Morgan persisted for the acceptance of arbitration in October. The strike was based on a settlement required in both of the parties to accept the government commission's decision to determine what post-strike action must be taken (Putnam & Garrett, 2020).

Differences In How Management Treated Employees

In both of these strikes, the main reasons for the strikes were how the employees were being treated. In the Pullman Strike, wages were cut by 25%, and most of the employees lived in the company-owned town where rent and other expenses stayed the same. In The Anthracite strike, the main complaints were pay and working conditions. The common theme in most strikes are Wages, Hors, and working conditions. In the Pullman, strike management convinced the Federal Government to send in troops to break the strike. The Anthracite strike management treated striking workers with hostility and didn't intend to negotiate with them.

Commonalities Of The Two Strikes

It is significant to note that when in the Pullman strike, American Railway Union joined the strike and ordered for boycott, the whole situation was transformed into an affair of national importance. The American Railway Union pioneered new tactics such as better public relations. Eight years late, a similar strike was observed in America. Irrespective of the results, causation in both of the strikes was quite the same, and the outcomes differentiation in both of the strikes goes to even-handed federal government intervention (Calavita, 2020).

      The similarity in both of these strikes can be observed because both of them were featured by large unions organized on the industrial base. The Management's concerted hostility caused Labor to walk out, with the willingness to arbitrate and government intervention. It is astonishing how there existed a similarity between the strikes that took place eight years apart. Another similarity in both strikes included the utilization of similar tactics before the initiation and duration of strikes.

      Because the Pullman strike was consolidated, the railroad management proved to be completely unwilling to give up its powers to reconcile the public and labor disputes. This is similar to the Anthracite strike when operators became against the organized Labor in many directions, such as in divine right coming across as the sort of old guard (Feurer & Pearson, 2017).

Differences That Set the Two Apart

The main difference that set these two strikes apart was the methods used by the Federal Government to intervene. In the Pullman strike, President Grover Cleveland sent in federal troops to break the strike. In the Anthracite strike, President Theodore Roosevelt went to great lengths to mediate the dispute. This was a significant shift from pro-management to pro-labor.

Causes Of The Strikes

The Pullman strike's core reason included the enduring twelve hours of working days and decreased earnings due to a miserable economy. Members of the American Railway Union, which was the principal unification of laborers, joined those strikers for justice to increase wages and increase the strike's effectiveness. The reason for the anthracite coal strike was for better work conditions and shorter working hours. The mining industry had many different trades organized by the United Mine Workers of America (Faue, 2017). Working hours, wages, and working conditions are the main reasons for Strikes and the organization of Labor even today.

Tactics That Could Have Possibly Avoided The Strikes

The avoidance of both of the strikes was possible if the industries' Management had provided the workers with their fundamental rights and were provided with better working conditions, fair wages on affordable hours of driving. Like United Mine Workers of America, The American Railway Union was also organized beyond the broad lines. Still, the mining industry had more trades in the above and below the grounds, which organized all the workers irrespective of the specific crafts (Feurer & Pearson, 2017).

      It cannot be denied that Management suppressed the fundamental rights of the workers. Management forced Labor to work long hours for low wages. All the conditions became much worse when the overall state of the economy was disrupted. This all led to violence and betrayal among the people. However, it is also significant to note that United Mine Workers of America reflected the same earlier labor thought, which mirrored those of The American Railway Union. (Aldrich, 2018).

The primary way for any business is to treat their employees fairly from the beginning. These Strikes took place in an era in which workers had minimal rights, and it is thanks to these strikes and other strikes that have helped to create awareness and laws that have made workplaces fairer and safer for employees.

Outcome Of The Strikes

The Pullman strike outcome was a total failure as all the tactics used, and all the efforts were wasted. No external help was provided to The American Railway Union to support their argument, which was raised to better the fundamental rights. It happened that, The American Railway Union, when repeatedly cautioned against the strike, the whole unit had become too weak, and they were relatively inexperienced to the industrial wage war, which was raised against the Pullman company. (Fink & Palacio, 2017).

      The results of the Anthracite strike were quite successful as in early December 1900. It happened that mine workers of the District Nine of United Mine Workers of America expressed their dissatisfaction, and thus, the result of the 1900 strike ended a few months before the termination of the district's convention. Then, suddenly the demand for coal means anthracite was enhanced, it merely raised the need for miners, and they were started to be paid by weight. Although, in many cases, it was also perceived that docking bosses used to under-weigh the coal (Putnam & Garrett, 2020).

With so many similarities, both of the strikes encompassed different outcomes in which the federal government intervention played a significant role. Both strikes were remarkably similar, with the involvement of large unions of organized Labor, the hostility of Management, and government intervention. The American Railway Union was destroyed in the Pullman strike, and United Mine Workers of America somehow managed to secure a substantial gain in anthracite strike (Berman, 2019).

      It is important to note that the military presence in the Pullman strike led to more violence. Eugene Debbs realized that The American Railway Union, which was taking part in the strike, would either be crushed or face a partial victory. Debbs was arrested for his role in the strike. It came to happen that Gompers, who had been an antagonist to The American Railway Union from the initiation phase, refused to lend support to Debbs for the campaign. Due to failure, strikers had to return to work, and the last hope of The American Railway Union from the outside help was crushed. It was the reason why not merely the boycott had to be over, but the Pullman Strike as well (Melloan, 2017).

      Railroad Management used its power and the federal government to end the Pullman strike and boycott. It is important to note that the national government also issued injunctions for ending The American Railway Union's ability to conduct the boycott. The Pullman strike also provided an exact representation of the crisis faced by Labor in the late 18th century.

Winner Of the Strikes

It is important to note that it was government and the Pullman factory management who were suppressing laborers' rights. Besides that, the American Railway Union and laborers had one of the worst defeats of history. Though the strike won national attention, it could not win the workers' fundamental rights. As a result, all workers had to go back to work without any agreement on their conditions (Shackel, 2018).

      In the Anthracite strike, the winners were the miners and United Mine Workers of America. They used the same public speaking tactics and socialization tactics, which were used by The American Railway Union. This time, luck was with the labor union, which caused the local strike to become a national issue, but it also led not to escalate The American Railway Union control. Moreover, the demand of the miners for uniform wages was also accepted (Berman, 2019).

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the period following the civil war was marked by an increase in hostility of Management towards Labor. The similarity in both of these strikes can be observed because both were organized by large unions organized on the industrial base and the Management's concerted hostility.

It is because the Pullman strike was consolidated. The railroad management proved to be completely unwilling to give up its powers to reconcile the public and labor disputes. The very same was posed in the Anthracite strike. With so many similarities, both of the strikes encompassed different outcomes in which a significant role was played by federal government intervention. It is important to note that military presence in the first strike led to more violence and the Debs had a realization that The American Railway Union, which was taking part in the strike. Then, the union turned towards its leaders and members of the legal defense as its main project because the organization's role was obliterated in the railway industry.

Hunting Laws and Regulations

 Hunting laws are statutes that regulate your right to pursue and kill a certain type of animals for food or to control their breeding. Even so, many people don’t actually understand why these hunting laws were enacted. 

Nonetheless, they are good hunters and have the best experiences too. So why were the hunting laws passed? There are several reasons. These are the reasons that I am going to dig deeper into for a better understanding.

Read through to get a grip on everything that I have outlined for you. First, let us look at the reasons why hunting laws were passed. 

Why Hunting Laws Were Passed

Let me say that hunting laws have existed for centuries. And while most people hunted for pleasure or for gaining food, they have been forced to play within the rules.

Today, however, hunting laws have become stricter. They have been enacted, and any failure to abide is met with equal force. Anyone who breaks hunting laws will either attract a jail term or a fine depending on the weight of the offense.

Several professional hunters still think that putting up hunting laws isn’t the right step to take; even so, they don’t know the reasons why these laws were enacted. 

There are several reasons why hunting laws were passed. Even so, if we wrapped it up in the shortest points possible, here are the reasons why hunting laws were passed.

Conservation of Wildlife 

The main reason why hunting laws were passed is to help in the conservation of wildlife for the benefit of the existing and future generations. By controlling how hunting is done, the state can regulate the number of animals killed so that no species goes extinct. 

Allows for Multiplication 

In relation to the above, the wildlife management laws were therefore passed to allow the game to keep on flourishing. This was done through the establishment of specific hunting seasons, which exempts hunters from killing game during nesting and mating seasons too. 

Responsible Game Hunting 

How has the establishment of hunting seasons impacted hunting? With the establishment of the hunting seasons, game harvesting is limited so that games can multiply enough to serve our needs. Remember that the hunting season excluded the nesting and mating seasons.

Even so, the hunting grounds are again controlled. You will realize that with the passing of these laws, hunting will only take place within specific areas and specific timelines. 

Discourage Illegal Hunting

Moreover, with the inaction of hunting laws, illegal hunting has been specifically discouraged. As such, those who hunt in order to profit from the skin and other animal parts illegally can be prosecuted. 

With the introduction of these laws, several animals that fall under the Endangered Species Act have today considerably increased and, in doing so, presented a new lifeline for such animal breeds too. 

This is one area that hunting laws have played a vital role in ensuring that animals’ populations have been considerably regained.

Limiting Hunting Methods 

Another reason why hunting laws were passed was to limit the methods and equipment that could be used for hunting. Without such limitations, some people may have used harmful or destructive methods. 

Today, specific firearms can be used when hunting. You can use bows and arrows too. Any use of chemicals is prohibited. These options have ensured that the game and the environment remain safe.

Setting “Bag” Limits 

More importantly, the introduction of hunting laws has set limits to the number of animals that someone can hunt at any given time. This amounts to responsible hunting and prevents someone from taking home more than they need.

In turn, unnecessary hunting is controlled, and so is the wastage of foodstuff. You cannot hunt for the sake of it. 

Additional Reasons 

Apart from what we have seen, hunting laws have again been set to do the following things for all parties involved.

Safety 

They have been formed to establish the best safety hunting guidelines. These safety tips are there to protect both the hunters and the non-hunters. In so doing, hunting laws have managed to bring in a smooth relationship between parties that rub shoulders when it comes to hunting.

Opportunities 

Again if you are wondering why hunting laws were passed, then the next reason is to offer equal opportunities for all the hunters. As such, whether you are using modern firearms, bows, and arrows, or even the muzzleloaders, you cannot take more than necessary. 

Moreover, you will hunt within the same timeline and no one takes advantage of their weapon’s superiority.

Funding 

Finally, having hunting laws in place has ensured that there is adequate funding for all the wildlife programs. Thanks to these laws there is the collection license fees that raise enough money to sustain most of the wildlife programs.

NOTE: In short, through the incorporation of hunting laws, animals are protected. Hunting is controlled and the animals are hardly harmed. 

Learning About Hunting Laws 

While you’ve understood why hunting laws are created, another important thing is to find out is where you could learn hunting laws from. Luckily for you, I want to point out some of the best places that you can find help when looking to learn hunting laws.

Pro Hunters 

Hunters that have been around for long without crossing paths with the law must have done it right all this while. Talk to them and ask them to nurture you. They will provide a good reservoir for knowledge especially on the dos and don’ts of hunting.

Law Officers 

The local wildlife enforcement officers or game wardens can again provide very important tips on hunting laws. They will provide you with the right guidelines and possibly teach a hunting group that seeks for their help. 

Hunting Schools

Hunting classes are part of your development if you want to be a pro hunter. You will be taught the rules and the laws. Even so, you must ensure that you enroll the right institution if you are looking for the help that you need. 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Onto the next point, let us now look at the most common questions that people ask which are related to hunting laws. 

What Groups Set Hunting Regulations?

In several states, the hunting regulations, are set by a wildlife management agency. These agencies often carry out regular meetings to determine necessary amendments and to ensure that the laws are in effect. 

Today, many states are vocal when it comes to the conservation of game. Thanks to these hunting laws. 

What is the sole purpose for hunting? 

Hunting of wildlife or other feral animals is commonly done for food (meat), recreation, and to eliminate predators that pose so much danger to humans and other domestic animals. However, while hunting you aren’t allow to hunt any animal. 

Animals that are classified as endangered shouldn’t be hunted. Neither are animals that don’t pose a threat and which aren’t required for food.

Why is Animal Conservation Taking Place?

Not all animals can be hunted. Like I mentioned, animals that are endangered are properly taken care of to increase their numbers. It is because of this reason that wildlife conservation is actually taking place.

How do the game conversations laws affect the hunters?

These laws limit certain things that the hunters can do. It limits the animals that they can hunt, where they can hunt, the hunting weapons that they can use (how they hunt), and the times that they can hunt. 

While they hunt these game conservation laws take effect and ensures that there is sustainable growth for the future generations to enjoy.

NOTE: With stricter hunting laws, the government and the wildlife enthusiasts will have a smooth relationship which helps them to actually increase the number of wildlife parks and natural habitat for every. 

Conclusion 

We have seen why were hunting laws passed, even so, one thing is clear, hunting laws have managed to create harmony between the many interested parties. From the government to the prey, everyone is protected. 

Moreover, these laws have created a clear way of doing things. You will understand where the money collected from licenses goes to and how it is used. 

In addition to that, with the help of the hunting laws, hunters now know exactly the animals to hunt and which ones to avoid. 

Thus, for your next hunting trips take your time to hunt responsibly and to ensure that you’ve followed all the necessary hunting laws. 

These laws have been set to help in the conservation of wildlife and as such, if you do not take your time to follow them, you can actually attract legal fines and jail terms.

That is why it is advisable that you actually follow these hunting laws when in national parks or in wildlife reserves.

Meta 

Why were hunting laws passed? Learn the impact of hunting laws to the conservation of wildlife. We have the best tips for you to follow through. 

Bridge Tile Saw Vs Sliding Table Saw

Whether it is modeling a residential or commercial space, most of us often come in a fix to choose the right tiles. Also, property modeling or renovation generally uses several types of tiles. You would want all of those tiles cut and set up meticulously so that it enhances beauty and aesthetics. 

And when it comes to cut the tiles, both sliding tile saw and bridge tile saw come in handy. In fact, many people are confused on the topic, “bridge tile saw vs sliding table saw.” To be honest, both power saws possesses tremendous tile cutting capacity and are great to use for various cuts. 

But how do you know when to choose between the bridge tile saw and sliding table saw? We will discuss their general definition, uses types of cuts along with the pros and cons to decide which power saw you should use to cut tiles. 

Bridge Tile Saw Vs Sliding Table Saw

Tile cutting and removal procedures must be done with accuracy, smoothness, and brilliant sharpness. The following guideline will surely help you to pick the right power saw for it. 

What Is A Bridge Tile Saw?

A bridge tile saw most commonly refers to the construction design or structure of the power tool. It has a bridge expansion on each side of the machine. The head of the tile saw moves through the bridge when you cut through any material. 

What Is A Sliding Table Saw?

The sliding table saw is almost self-explanatory. On the left side of the blade of the power tool, you will see a sliding table. It is mounted right under the saw base or table. You will see it attached with the table using a folding arm. 

It also uses a riving knife. It prevents accidental kickbacks when you cut through the tiles. 

Types of Cut

The sliding table tile saw and tile bridge saws are both adept at various types of cuts. However, you can’t use both the power saws for all sorts of cuts on the tile. You will have to find and realize which tile saw can perform which type of cuts the best to make the decision between sliding table vs bridge tile saw.

Sliding Table Tile Saw

If you have to make plunge cuts or create notches, it is recommended that you use a sliding tile saw. However, you can use it to cut long rip cuts, but that needs a unique technique and a few adjustments on your side. 

Professionals usually use the table saw to cut half the length of the tile with the saw first. Then they alternate the direction of the tile to cut the other half. This way, they produce the long rip cuts. Hence, when you are confused about the bridge tile saw vs sliding table saw, we recommend you to use the sliding tile saw for plunge cuts. 

Bridge Tile Saw

When you plan to perform the extra-long rip cuts, you must own a bridge tile saw. It won’t limit your reaching capacity on the entire length of the tile. Also, you won’t have to make any direction changes or adjustments to cut through the tiles. 

Nonetheless, you can’t perform the plunge cut using the bridge tile saw. That’s why when it comes to sliding table vs bridge tile saw for rip cuts, you must go for the bridge tile saw. 

Maintenance

Let’s be frank that tiles are one of the most rigid materials that a power saw cuts. The tiles are of different sizes and made of various materials, which aren’t easy to cut through. Hence, both the sliding wet saw and bridge wet tile saw go through extreme wear and tear. 

So, what does this imply?

It means that you must choose between a bridge tile saw vs a sliding table saw for quick and easy maintenance. It will help you accomplish the cutting tasks much more comfortable and faster. 

Bridge Tile Saw Maintenance

Bridge tile saw is famous for its long life and extreme durability. Similarly, the power saw has incredible stability since both of its sides has a bridging expansion. So, it doesn’t vibrate much during the cutting session. 

It increases the longevity of the bridge tile saw. Also, it needs less maintenance because all the components are attached with remarkable compactness.

Sliding Table Saw Maintenance

A sliding table saw is a massive power tool. Although it is also a low-maintenance tool, it often costs a considerable expense for one-time care, repair, and maintenance. Therefore, using a sliding table saw will actually cost you a good amount for maintenance. 

Difference Between A Miter Saw and Circular Saw

Also, when you are in doubt about the bridge tile saw vs sliding table saw, you also should have a clear idea on the miter saw and circular saw. It will help you make the decision better. It is crucial since a wet tile saw has a resemblance with the table or miter saw. 

  • Circular saws are of a different variety. Its design variations and handheld feature allow the users to perform various types of straight and angled cuts. The miter saws are mostly used for straight cuts only. 
  • You can perform accurate cuts with the miter saw. The circular saw is less accurate. 
  • A circular saw is way quicker than the miter saw. 
  • Generally, circular saws are less expensive compared to the miter saws. 

Pros and Cons of Sliding Table Saw

You must understand the advantages and disadvantages of using a sliding tile saw to know when to use it and when not to properly. 

Pros:

  • Ideal for smaller cuts 
  • Perfect for plunge cuts 
  • The large slider is more stable and safer 
  • It vibrates less for smooth cuts 

Cons:

  • The maintenance is often expensive 
  • Complicated cutting operations 

Pros and Cons of Bridge Tile Saw

A bridge tile saw is exceptionally adept at various tile cutting jobs. However, it has its advantages and disadvantages depending on the cutting types and situations that we found during our bridge tile saw review. 

Pros:

  • It performs long rip cuts 
  • Needs less maintenance 
  • Doesn’t vibrate to assure the accuracy 
  • Easy to work with on hard tiles 

Cons:

  • The bridge on each side of the blade makes it a heavier tool 
  • It has limited smoothness and cutting variations 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Can a tile saw be used as a table saw?A table saw is mainly used to cut different wood types. A tile saw has similarities with a table saw. But its carbide blade with a diamond edge is different from the table saw. If you use the tile saw to cut woods as a table saw, the result won’t be accurate and satisfactory. 

  1. Can you use a wet saw without water?

Although you can use a wet tile saw without water, it is highly discouraged. The blade of the wet tile saw is designed to operate with proper lubrication. So, when you use the wet tile saw without water, the edge will wear out soon. Also, the cutting results won’t be as smooth as you would like to have. 

  1. Do you cut tile face up or face down?

This rule is pretty straightforward. You must cut a tile with its face up towards you without considering the type of the tile you are going to cut. When you cut a tile with face down position, it increases the chances of cracks and damages on the tile more. When you cut the tiles face up, you get the smoothest cuts and least chipping on the working material too. 

Conclusion

From our discussion on the topic of bridge tile saw vs sliding table saw, it is clear that both power tools are brilliant at cutting different tiles in various situations. Also, both saw is ideal for commercial and residential renovation works and changes tiles. 

Therefore, we leave the decision on to you. But if you like us, we would recommend that use the slide table saw for plunge cuts and bridge table saw for long and rip cuts. Also, the bridge table is an expensive investment for maintenance compared to the slide tile saw. 

Meta Description

Most tile cutters are confused on bridge tile saw vs sliding table saw. A bridge tile saw needs frequent maintenance and cuts long and rip cuts.